DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERT AND NOVICE GYMNASTS PERFORMANCE OF A COUNTER MOVEMENT FORWARD IN FLIGHT ON UNEVEN BARS
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
This study investigated the different strategies exhibited by expert and novice gymnasts in counter movement forward in flight on uneven bars. Eleven gymnasts performed three trials connected with a kip to support. The gymnasts were divided into two groups according to their ability to connect: six able (termed as experts) versus five non-able (novices). The 3D motion data were collected at 250 Hz. Biomechanical parameters were computed at release (release state and angular momentum), during aerial phase (duration, minimum value of the moment of inertia) and at regrasp (total duration and rotation angle). Robustness of the release state was also compared. Significant differences were found between groups in the three phases. The novice gymnasts performed as robustly as expert gymnasts but less efficiently because they released the low bar before their centre of mass passed the horizontal, with a lower vertical velocity, resulting in a lower and shorter aerial phase. They also had a larger minimum moment of inertia in flight. Coaches could help novice gymnasts to decrease their dependency on their robust technique by improving the release angle. Exercises, which may allow novice gymnasts to exceed the threshold of a 90° rotation angle at release are suggested.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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