MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153639772 · doi:10.37920/sasj.2021.55.1.6

Contextual batting and bowling in limited overs cricket

2021· article· en· W3153639772 on OpenAlexafffund
James A. Thomson, Harsha Perera, Tim B. Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueSouth African Statistical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCricketStatisticSet (abstract data type)Computer scienceClutchStatisticsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cricket is a sport for which many batting and bowling statistics have been proposed. However, a feature of cricket is that the level of aggressiveness adopted by batsmen is dependent on match circumstances. It is therefore relevant to consider these circumstances when evaluating batting and bowling performances. This paper considers batting performance in the second innings of limited overs cricket when a target has been set. The runs required, the number of overs completed and the wickets taken are relevant in assessing the batting performance. We produce a visualization for second innings batting which describes how a batsman performs under different circumstances. The visualization is then reduced to a single statistic “clutch batting” which can be used to compare batsmen. An analogous approach is then provided for bowlers based on the symmetry between batting and bowling, and we define the statistic “clutch bowling”.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSouth African Statistical JournalSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207