An examination of studies related to the sport of curling: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There has been growth in research in the sport of curling over the past few decades. The need for a scoping review is warranted. This study's purpose was to identify and synthesize research evidence regarding quantitative variables for a series of components within the sport of curling. Methods: A scoping review of studies published and established within four databases was performed. One independent reviewer selected studies based on a systematic procedure. Inclusion criteria for studies were: (1) interventions that focused on the sport of curling; (2) quantitative in nature; (3) written in English; and (4) published within a peer-reviewed journal, a conference presentation, or a published thesis. Results: Searching identified 8,467 articles and 94 met the inclusion criteria. Data were organized and synthesized based on the devised research variables from the sport of curling: The curl mechanism of the curling stone; the impact of sweeping on stone trajectory; curling delivery mechanics; wheelchair curling; technology analysis; strategy and tactics; psychological factors; injury occurrences; facility and arena infrastructure; and assessment of curling training and ability. The findings confirm the strong knowledge base that exists across game variables and unveil controversy between the underlying physics that produces curl, as well as the mechanisms of sweeping responsible for manipulating the stone trajectory. Conclusions: Knowledge derived from this review can assist researchers, coaches, and curlers in addressing the specific variables of the sport that influence stone trajectory and game results. Such awareness will expose gaps in the current understanding and foster new research endeavors to further the knowledge of the sport.
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 | 0.093 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.050 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".