Radar Sensor Data Fitting for Accurate Linear Sprint Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Accurate linear sprint modelling is essential for evaluating athletes’ performance, particularly in terms of force, power, and velocity capabilities. Radar sensors have emerged as a critical tool in capturing precise velocity data, which is fundamental for generating reliable force-velocity (FV) profiles. This study focuses on the fitting of radar sensor data to various sprint modelling techniques to enhance the accuracy of these profiles. Forty-seven university-level athletes (M = 23, F = 24; 1.75 ± 0.1 m; 79.55 ± 12.64 kg) participated in two 40 m sprint trials, with radar sensors collecting detailed velocity measurements. This study evaluated five different modelling approaches, including three established methods, a third-degree polynomial, and a sigmoid function, assessing their goodness-of-fit through the root mean square error (RMSE) and coefficient of determination (r2). Additionally, FV metrics (Pmax, F0, V0, FVslope, and DRF) were calculated and compared using ANOVA. Results: Significant differences (p < 0.001) were identified across the models in terms of goodness-of-fit and most FV metrics, with the sigmoid and polynomial functions demonstrating superior fit to the radar-collected velocity data. Conclusions: The results suggest that radar sensors, combined with appropriate modelling techniques, can significantly improve the accuracy of sprint performance analysis, offering valuable insights for both researchers and coaches. Care should be taken when comparing results across studies employing different modelling approaches, as variations in model fitting can impact the derived metrics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".