MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392873198 · doi:10.25236/fsr.2024.060113

Visual analysis of foreign ice hockey research based on knowledge graphs

2024· article· en· W4392873198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sport Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper takes the ice hockey literature included in the Web of science database from 1980-2022 as the data source, and uses Citespace5.8R3 visual software analysis tool, using literature, knowledge mapping, comparative analysis and other methods, to analyse the research on the development of ice hockey in foreign countries, aiming at presenting the status quo, hotspots and fronts of the research of ice hockey in foreign countries, and so on, and to provide for the development of ice hockey projects, research selection to provide reference. Findings: (1) The number of foreign ice hockey research publications is generally rising in waves, which can be divided into two phases: the slow growth phase (1983-2022) and the sharp growth phase (2013-2021) (2) The research is more in the countries with high competitive level of ice hockey programme, such as Canada, the United States, Sweden, etc. (3) The research reflects the cross integration of multiple disciplines and is distributed in the fields of engineering, sports science, neurology, psychology, sociology, social sciences, psychology, and so on. (4) The research hotspots are diffused from the initial sports injury and protection; athlete's age to the sports performance and hockey physical fitness.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0630.049
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.209
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Sport ResearchSame topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207