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
Dear friends,
 
 We have been publishing scientific articles about gymnastics for a dozen of years. 2020 will be marked by the Olympic Games in Tokyo (Japan). We expect excellent gymnastics and perhaps some new records even though gymnastics is normally not about records. We believe that many articles published here in the past have contributed to safer and better gymnastics.
 
 The present issue brings seven articles from different lines of gymnastics, including general gymnastics, rhythmics, artistic gymnastics and acrobatics. Their topis range from sociology, psychology, motor abilities and motor control to physical education.
 
 There authors are from Brazil, Greece, Canada, Germany, Slovenia and Spain.
 
 Anton Gajdoš drafted another article related to the history of gymnastics, refreshing our awareness of Nikolay Adrianov, an excellent Russian gymnast who marked the era between 1970 and 1980 and later as a coach in Russia and Japan.
 
 Special thanks to our reviewers whose diligent work has improved the quality of the published papers. The list of reviewers in 2019 is at the end of this issue.
 
 Just to remind you, if you quote the Journal, its abbreviation on the Web of Knowledge is SCI GYMN J.
 
 I wish you pleasant reading and a lot of inspiration for new research projects and articles,
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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