The Use of Momentum-Inspired Features in Pre-Game Prediction Models for the Sport of Ice Hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We make a unique contribution to momentum research by proposing a way to quantify momentum with performance indicators (i.e., features). We argue that due to measurable randomness in the NHL, sequential outcomes’ dependence or independence may not be the best way to approach momentum. Instead, we quantify momentum using a small sample of a team’s recent games and a linear line of best-fit to determine the trend of a team’s performances before an upcoming game. We show that with the use of SVM and logistic regression these momentum- based features have more predictive power than traditional frequency-based features in a pre-game prediction model which only uses each team’s three most recent games to assess team quality. While a random forest favors the use of both feature sets combined. The predictive power of these momentum-based features suggests that momentum is a real phenomenon in the NHL and may have more effect on the outcome of games than suggested by previous research. In addition, we believe that how our momentum-based features were designed and compared to frequency-based features could form a framework for comparing the short-term effects of momentum on any individual sport or team.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".