The interpersonal coordination constraint on the volleyball setter’s decision-making on setting direction
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
This study investigated the setter’s decision-making on setting direction based on interpersonal (interaction between players) and extra personal (interaction between players and some place or object) coordination. The sample consisted of 86 sequences of play involving settings performed by males (n = 43) and females (n = 43). Fifty-nine spatiotemporal measures of interpersonal and extra personal coordination were obtained from the x and y coordinates of volleyball players’ displacements using the TACTO software. Settings to each court zone were compared in relation to each spatiotemporal measure. Results showed that when the final area between attacker in the zone 3 and block was greatest and emerged from highest velocity, setters decided to set to zone 2. On the other hand, when the foregoing area was smallest and emerged from lowest velocity, setters decided to set to zones 3 and 4. It was concluded that the final area between attacker in the zone 3 and block and its emerging velocity constrained the setters’ decision-making on setting direction. This study provides useful insights into the design of practice tasks in volleyball, suggesting that setters should be advised to be attuned to the interpersonal coordination involving attacker in the zone 3 and block.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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