MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389194913 · doi:10.1080/21520704.2023.2287324

Technology Meets Sport Psychology: How Technology and Artificial Intelligence Can Shape the Future of Elite Sport Performance

2023· article· en· W4389194913 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Psychology in Action · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSport psychologyPsychologyBig dataRelation (database)EliteAthletesApplied psychologyElite athletesAnalyticsSelection (genetic algorithm)Data scienceSocial psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePoliticsPolitical scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data analytics have become increasingly popular within professional sport organizations. Big data exists upon which decisions are made in relation to athlete selection and performance analysis. The data draw upon vary from big data and more idiosyncratic data that is contextually focused. We consider the importance of data technology in relation to the prediction of athlete and team performance within high-performance sport. Here we expand upon existing approaches to analytics, and why the prediction of athletes’ behaviors is often found to be ineffective. Recommendations are provided how sport psychology can offer insights for analytics departments.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.763

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.258 · 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