Impact of Engaging the Nonthrowing Arm on Maximal Ball Velocity From an Overhand Throw With Both the Dominant and Nondominant Arms: A Pilot Study
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
The overhand throw is a complex whole-body motor skill that is fundamental to many sports and activities. When throwing properly, the momentum generated to complete the movement begins in the lower body and transfers through the trunk to the throwing arm. This proof-of-concept study’s primary purpose was to evaluate the impact of the nonthrowing arm on the ball speed during an overhand throw with both the dominant and nondominant arms. Eighteen participants (age: 20.20 ± 2.90 years, nine women) were divided into two intervention groups: a pulling group taught to engage the nonthrowing arm through a pull toward the body and a nonpulling group taught the overhand throw using a component-based physical education curriculum. Each participant completed 12 total throws, six for each side (dominant and nondominant arm). Ball speed and kinematic data were collected using an eight-camera motion analysis system and were assessed using a pre–post study design. The two groups showed significant improvements pre–post when throwing with both the dominant and nondominant arms. Based on effect size comparisons, engaging the nonthrowing arm makes a meaningful difference in maximal ball velocity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it