Sink or swim: innovations in aquatic health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the first modern Olympic Games in 1896, the aquatic sports have expanded both in participation and innovation over the last century. Beginning with swimming, diving, water polo, and later additions of artistic swimming, open water swimming and high diving, the aquatics sports represent a core pillar of Olympic disciplines. The rapid expansion of aquatic disciplines necessitated the foundation of the Fédération Internationale de Natation (FINA) in 1908, to govern the development of aquatic sports. The amateur spectacle has been slowly replaced with an increased focus on health and performance by dedicated professional athletes and support teams, resulting in the development of new innovations. In the early years, innovations largely centered on technical equipment such as bathing suit and springboard design. In more recent years, research and innovation have shifted focus to health and its impact on performance, including but not limited to changes in training methods, nutrition, injury and illness reduction through surveillance and access to education for athletes, coaches, and support personnel. An increased awareness on factors that affect athlete health have also driven safety innovations including the development of Nutrition and Relative Energy Deficiency in Sport Clinical Assessment Tool, the Sport Mental Health Assessment and Recognition Tools and safeguarding from harassment and abuse through embedding athletes' right to safe sport in underpinning statutory documents. While the future of aquatic health innovations remains undefined, there are many potential opportunities for research and knowledge translation as the aquatic sports continue to evolve and adapt over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".