Kinematics Comparison of Volleyball Jump Serve Technique under Two Serving Line Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In volleyball, the jump serve is a fundamental and crucial skill that is one of the most commonly used serving techniques. This study aimed to examine the kinematic differences between straight line (SL) and diagonal line (DL) in volleyball jump serves by focusing on torso and attack arm joint motions. Three-dimensional coordinate data were captured using a motion capture system (200 Hz) in 14 right-handed male professional volleyball players who performed SL and DL jump serves. This result suggests that the pelvis and torso backward rotation angles during the arm-clocking phase were smaller when performing DL serves. During ball contact, the servers exhibited greater forward rotation angles of the pelvis and torso to control the upper body facing the diagonal direction of the target zone. In addition, lowering the forward tilt angle of the trunk helped the servers maintain body balance in the air and increased their wrist flexion angle, preventing the ball from flying out of bounds when performing DL. These findings highlight the importance of controlling pelvic and torso rotations in the transverse plane when adjusting for different serving lines. These insights can guide volleyball athletes and coaches in refining their serving techniques.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".