Comprehensive evaluation model for athletes based on PageRank and complex networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A necessary condition for the accurate evaluation of the comprehensive strength and greatness of athletes in sports is the provision of objective and quantifiable criteria, which can reduce subjective bias and increase persuasiveness. This paper builds a model based on the characteristics of individual sports competitions, from which 'The Greatest Athlete of All Time' (The G.O.A.T.) is selected. Boxing was chosen as the object of study, and the model first collected relevant data on the BoxRec website, and built a complex network among boxers based on the relationship between opponents' fights against each other. With the support of a large amount of data, this paper uses the PageRank algorithm to score and rank the players according to the objectivity and practicality of the data, and obtain the 'greatest athlete of all time' in boxing. In order to extend the evaluation model to all individual sports, this paper subdivided the individual sports into direct and indirect athletics, and implemented differentiated evaluation. For indirect athletics, the indicators like 'relative score' and 'record keeping time', are added. The aim is to select the 'greatest athletes of all time' through comprehensive analysis.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it