MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402138891 · doi:10.5114/biolsport.2025.142638

‘Setting the Benchmark’ Part 4: Contextualising the MatchDemands of Teams at the FIFA Women’s World Cup Australiaand New Zealand 2023

2024· article· en· W4402138891 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Sport · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicSports Analytics and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBenchmark (surveying)Operations researchPsychologyEngineeringGeographyGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of the present study were to: (1) analyse the upper and lower match physical performance benchmarks and variability of teams at the FIFA Women's World Cup Australia and New Zealand 2023, (2) examine the evolving team sprint ranking across three Women's World Cups and (3) investigate noteworthy relationships between collective physical and tactical metrics.With FIFA's official approval, all sixty-four games at the tournament were analysed using an optical tracking system alongside FIFA's Enhanced Football Intelligence metrics.On average, teams at the FIFA Women's World Cup 2023 covered 103.3 4.4 km in total, with 6.7 0.6 km and 1.9 0.3 km covered at the higher intensities (19.0 & 23.0 km h -1 ), respectively.The top five ranked teams from a high-intensity running perspective (Zambia, Spain, Brazil, Canada, Denmark) covered 24-44% more distance than the bottom five ranked teams (Jamaica, Columbia, Costa Rica, Switzerland, Vietnam) at the tournament (P < 0.01; Effect Size [ES]: 2.3-2.5).Match-to-match variation of teams revealed Italy and Panama were particularly consistent for the distances covered at higher intensities (Coefficient of Variation [CV]: 0.3-4.5%),while Costa Rica demonstrated considerable variation (CV: 23.4-40.7%).Teams generally covered more total distance on a per-minute basis in the first versus the second half (P < 0.01; ES: 1.1), but no differences existed at higher intensities (P > 0.05; ES: 0.1-0.2).Correlations were found between the number of high-intensity runs and various phase of play events for defensive transitions and recoveries, in addition to progressions up the pitch and into the final third (r = 0.48-0.88;P < 0.01).A basic comparative analysis revealed Spain demonstrated the most pronounced increase (2015 = 9 th , 2019 = 35 th , 2023 = 90 th percentile; CV: 92.6%) and China PR the most marked decrease (2015 = 22 nd , 2019 = 30 th , 2023 = 0 percentile; CV: 89.6%) in their sprinting percentile rank across the last three FIFA Women's World Cups.The present findings provide a depiction of the current collective demands of international women's football.This information could be useful for practitioners to benchmark team performances and to potentially understand the myriad of contextual factors impacting physical performances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.223 · 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