Electronic tennis officiating: low cost, accurate and reliable solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this project was to research an electronic tennis officiating system that was low cost, accurate, and reliable. To do this, professional practices and literature were reviewed to identify what was already known and being implemented in the market. A basic proof of concept, in the form of a foot fault detecting system, was built in order to find out if a larger system could realistically be built. Then, a thorough investigation of components, including sensors, microcontrollers, wireless devices, cases, holders, and alert systems was performed to better understand the underlying technologies and suitability in a tennis officiating setting. Sensors were tested on a full-scale tennis court to identify the best possible option for a final design based on accuracy, cost, ease of use, set-up time, reliability, and size. Additionally, a plan to develop and commercialize the system was examined, taking into consideration relevant costs and restraints. Finally, a scale model of the full system was put together, showcasing the components previously studied and providing end users with an idea of how it would work.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".