Algorithmically deconstructing shot locations as a method for shot quality in hockey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial point processes have been successfully used to model the relative efficiency of shot locations for each player in professional basketball games. Those analyses were possible because each player makes enough baskets to reliably fit a point process model. Goals in hockey are rare enough that a point process cannot be fit to each player’s goal locations, so novel techniques are needed to obtain measures of shot efficiency for each player. A Log-Gaussian Cox Process (LGCP) is used to model all shot locations, including goals, of each NHL player who took at least 500 shots during the 2011–2018 seasons. Each player’s LGCP surface is treated as an image and these images are then used in an unsupervised statistical learning algorithm that decomposes the pictures into a linear combination of spatial basis functions. The coefficients of these basis functions are shown to be a very useful tool to compare players. To incorporate goals, the locations of all shots that resulted in a goal are treated as a “perfect player” and used in the same algorithm (goals are further split into perfect forwards, perfect centres and perfect defence). These perfect players are compared to other players as a measure of shot efficiency. This analysis provides a map of common shooting locations, identifies regions with the most goals relative to the number of shots and demonstrates how each player’s shot location differs from scoring locations.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it