Segment power analysis of collegiate softball hitting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this investigation was to describe the energy flow through the kinetic chain during softball hitting using a segmental power analysis. Twenty-three NCAA Division I collegiate softball athletes (20.4 ± 1.7 yr; 166.7 ± 22.0 cm; 74.9 ± 15.9 kg) performed three maximum effort swings off a stationary tee placed in the middle of the strike zone. Pelvis, trunk, humerus, forearm and hand segment powers were integrated across four phases of the softball swing (load, stride, acceleration, and follow-through). The load and stride phases had low segment energy inflow and outflow values as well as net segment energy flow for all body segments compared to subsequent phases of the swing. The acceleration phase showed large trunk inflow values relative to the pelvis. There was also descriptively larger front compared to back-side upper extremity inflow. Finally, the follow-through phase showed primarily energy outflow for the upper extremity segments likely attributed to slowing down rotation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".