MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323649978 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2023.060108

Development and Application of Campus Sports Competition System

2023· article· en· W4323649978 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chun Wang, Ruiying Zhang, Tianshan Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicE-commerce and Technology Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetition (biology)Sport managementProcess (computing)AdvertisingFunction (biology)Sports marketingPhysical educationMedical educationMarketingMultimediaMathematics educationPsychologyComputer sciencePublic relationsBusinessPolitical scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the degree of sports competitions held in colleges and universities across the country, the complicated process of regular sports competitions in colleges and universities directly leads to the low density of undertaking sports competitions, resulting in the low participation of students in sports competitions, or the single participation group, which can not achieve the effect of full exercise and improving the overall level of college students. For this problem, with the help of the application of the school sports competition APP, they can pay more attention to sports competitions, so that they can actively participate in sports or sports competitions, and achieve the purpose of improving their physical fitness and physical function through continuous exercise. Secondly, this APP integrates the publishing, registration and watching of sports competitions, provides convenience for students to participate in sports competitions, and is beneficial for organizers to collect registration information. Then, the system automatically arranges and generates competition teams, which makes the competitions more orderly and achieves the purpose of facilitating the development of sports competitions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.708
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicE-commerce and Technology InnovationsFrench-language works237,207