‘Setting the Benchmark’ Part 3: Contextualising the MatchDemands of Specialised Positions at the FIFA Women’s WorldCup Australia and New Zealand 2023
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
) were 18-89% and 88-163% greater in attacking midfielders, wide midfielders, wide forwards and centre forwards than other positions (P < 0.01; ES: 0.5-2.0 and ES: 1.0-1.3, respectively). Regarding offers made to receive the ball, defensive and central midfielders, attacking midfielders and centre forwards moved more between the lines than centre backs, wide defenders and wide midfielders (P < 0.01; ES: 1.0-1.9). Movements in behind lines were more common for offensive roles such as attacking midfielders, wide midfielders, wide forwards and centre forwards than other positions (P < 0.01; ES: 0.9-2.3). Regarding pressing events, direct pressure was highest for defensive and central midfielders compared to other positions (P < 0.05; ES: 0.5-1.3) and indirect pressure was greater for central midfielders, attacking midfielders, wide midfielders and centre forwards compared to centre backs and wide defenders (P < 0.01; ES: 0.9-2.3). A basic within tournament positional comparison revealed that centre backs and centre forwards demonstrated pronounced changes in their relative sprint distances from Canada 2015, France 2019 through to Australia and New Zealand 2023. These findings could be valuable to benchmark the contemporary positional demands of women's international football, while also providing a framework to design role-specific training drills.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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