Does the presence of an opponent affect object projection accuracy in elite athletes? A study of the landing location of the short serve in elite badminton players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to accurately project (e.g. throw, kick, hit) an object at high speed is a uniquely human skill, and this ability has become a critical feature of many competitive sports. Nonetheless, in some sports, the target or end-point for a projected object is often not reached because an opponent intercepts or returns the object; thus, a player cannot use object landing location information to inform accuracy outcome. By comparing the landing location of serves performed without an opponent by elite badminton players to predicted landing points of serves delivered with an opponent, we aimed to determine whether object projection accuracy is affected by the presence of an opponent. Landing locations of serves to an opponent were predicted using a model developed through analysis of serves without an opponent present. The model predicted that 69% of serves to an opponent would have landed on or short (i.e. outside the permitted area) of the service line. Thus, serve trajectory in elite badminton players was considerably altered by the presence of an opponent, despite their aim to serve to a specific point on the court.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".