A comparison of tournament systems for the men’s World Handball Championship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The men’s Handball World Championship commences with eight round robin groups of four teams before the “main round” of four groups of six teams. These groups of six each include the top three teams from pairs of initial groups. The tournament draw uses pots of eight which risks two teams in the top four appearing in the same group of the main round. A further issue is that teams finishing between third and sixth in the main round groups are awarded tournament places between ninth and 24th without any further matches. Therefore, the purpose of this investigation was to compare the current tournament system with alternatives using pots of four teams in the draw, and / or adding a knockout stage to place teams from ninth to 24th. These four tournament systems were simulated 100,000 times, using underlying regression models for the goals scored based on their World ranking points. Introducing pots of four increased the chance of reaching the quarter-finals for teams ranked one to four and nine to 12 by 1.3% and 1.6% respectively. It is recommended that the draw uses pots of four teams associated with pairs of initial groups that lead to common main draw groups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".