Automatic detection of passing and shooting in water polo using machine learning: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently no efficient way to quantify overhead throwing volume in water polo. Therefore, this study aimed to test the feasibility of a method to detect passes and shots in water polo automatically using inertial measurement units (IMU) and machine-learning algorithms. Eight water polo players wore one IMU sensor on the wrist (dominant hand) and one on the sacrum during six practices each. Sessions were filmed with a video camera and manually tagged for individual shots or passes. Data were synchronised between video tagging and IMU sensors using a cross-correlation approach. Support vector machine (SVM) and artificial neural networks (ANN) were compared based on sensitivity and specificity for identifying shots and passes. A total of 7294 actions were identified during the training sessions, including 945 shots and 5361 passes. Using SVM, passes and shots together were identified with 94.4% (95%CI = 91.8-96.4) sensitivity and 93.6% (95%CI = 91.4-95.4) specificity. Using ANN yielded similar sensitivity (93.0% [95%CI = 90.1-95.1]) and specificity (93.4% [95%CI = 91.1 = 95.2]). The results suggest that this method of identifying overhead throwing motions with IMU has potential for future field applications. A set-up with one single sensor at the wrist can suffice to measure these activities in water polo.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".