MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391621409 · doi:10.5642/jhummath.gxla9110

Hockey Card Statistics Are Stagnant and Stale

2024· article· en· W4391621409 on OpenAlexaffabout
Egan J. Chernoff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Humanistic Mathematics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatisticsComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purchase of a coffee at a Canadian institution, Tim Hortons, turned into an informal investigation into hockey card statistics. Turns out, hockey card statistics are stagnant and stale. This was disappointing to see because the game of hockey has changed, the statistics used to keep track of the game have changed. Even the cards have changed. Well, not the back of the cards, which do not well enough paint a statistical picture of the hockey player photographed on the front of the card.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.117
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.117
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0160.011
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.014

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Humanistic MathematicsSame topicSports Analytics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207