MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311464222 · doi:10.1038/s43246-022-00317-4

Effect of grip-enhancing agents on sliding friction between a fingertip and a baseball

2022· article· en· W4311464222 on OpenAlexaff
Takeshi Yamaguchi, Daiki Nasu, Kei Masani

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Materials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeagueFriction coefficientEngineeringCoefficient of frictionForensic engineeringAdvertisingBusinessMaterials scienceComposite materialPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Friction between a pitcher’s fingers and the leather surface of a baseball is a key factor that influences ball delivery, causing Major League Baseball in the United States to recently enhance enforcement of rules banning the unauthorized use of friction-enhancing agents or sticky substances. Here, we examine how the application of rosin powder and sticky substances alters the friction coefficient between a fingertip and the leather of a baseball. We find that sticky substances increase friction which can positively affect ball spin rate, while rosin has the advantage of keeping friction consistent within and between individuals. Additionally, we find that baseballs used by the Nippon Professional Baseball Organization in Japan are less slippery compared with the ones used in Major League Baseball, suggesting that grip-enhancers may have a larger impact on friction for baseballs used in the United States compared to Japan. Furthermore, our results indicate that changing the characteristics of the leather the baseball is made from may increase friction, reducing the unauthorized use of sticky substances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications MaterialsSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207