Similarities and differences between sports subserving systematic talent transfer and development: The case of paddle sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate similarities and differences for 18 sports toward canoe/kayak in order to identify donorsport and/or multisports, based upon a systematic analysis of the task constraints per sport that are assumed to be either crucial or less important from the coaches' viewpoint. DESIGN: Descriptive survey analysis. METHODS: 891 certified coaches from 19 sports valued (0-10; not important at all-very important) 15 characteristics by a questionnaire (Flemish Sports Compass) within their sport. Unique sport-profiles (discriminant analysis - DA) were constructed for 19 sports based on these characteristics. Similarities and differences between canoe/kayak and the other 18 sports were analyzed by means of MANOVAs on anthropometric, physical and motor coordination characteristics. RESULTS: Cross validated DA (rcan=0.660, Wilks' Lambda=0.564, p<0.001) showed that 72.1% of the canoe/kayak coaches were correctly assigned to their sport. For canoe/kayak seven characteristics were valued crucial; dynamic balance (8.51±1.69), core stability (8.45±2.27), pulling power (8.12±1.68), speed (7.54±2.07), endurance (7.27±2.03), stature (6.43±1.41) and rhythm (6.01±3.01). Least important characteristics were: flexibility (6.16±1.75), agility (4.27±3.10), catching (3.90±3.22), climbing (2.45±3.05), jumping (1.81±2.11), throwing (1.60±2.24), hitting (.94±1.77) and kicking (.61±1.04). CONCLUSIONS: This novel approach to determine important characteristics per sport makes identifying similarities and differences between sports possible. Similarities might enlarge talent-pools for possible talent transfers. Differences can help identify sports based on complementary characteristics for the construction of broad motor development programs. From this viewpoint gymnastics can serve as potential donorsport (similarities) for canoe/kayak, while handball and tennis can subserve broad development for young canoe/kayak athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".