Comparison of machine learning classifiers for differentiating level and sport using movement data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to determine if 1) recurrent neural networks designed for multivariate, time-series analyses outperform traditional linear and non-linear machine learning classifiers when classifying athletes based on competition level and sport played, and 2) athletes of different sports move differently during non-sport-specific movement screens. Optical-based kinematic data from 542 athletes were used as input data for nine different machine learning algorithms to classify athletes based on competition level and sport played. For the traditional machine learning classifiers, principal component analysis and feature selection were used to reduce the data dimensionality and to determine the best principal components to retain. Across tasks, recurrent neural networks and linear machine learning classifiers tended to outperform the non-linear machine learning classifiers. For all tasks, reservoir computing took the least amount of time to train. Across tasks, reservoir computing had one of the highest classification rates and took the least amount of time to train; however, interpreting the results is more difficult compared to linear classifiers. In addition, athletes were successfully classified based on sport suggesting that athletes competing in different sports move differently during non-sport specific movements. Therefore, movement assessment screens should incorporate sport-specific scoring criteria.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".