MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406989445 · doi:10.30574/ijsra.2025.14.1.0212

Survey on enhancing athletic training with activity recognition and deep learning

2025· article· en· W4406989445 on OpenAlexaff
Shashank Tiwari, Hiranmayi Ch, P M Ebin, Juan Tello

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Science and Research Archive · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Deep learningPsychologyAthletic trainingComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedical educationMedicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The proposed methodology focuses on the advanced analysis and enhancement of athletic techniques, particularly targeting the precision, angle, and positioning of movements such as shooting. By integrating technologies like Human Action Recognition (HAR), Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Deep Learning, the system analyzes player data from images or videos, identifying errors and offering insights for improvement. It suggests optimal shooting angles, positions for maximum scoring, and corrective measures to refine technique, thus aiding coaches in player assessment, strategy formulation, and tactical decision-making. The methodology employs OpenCV and Machine Learning algorithms for accurate performance analysis, while Deep Learning models, such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) and You Only Look Once (YOLOv8), optimize feature extraction and analysis. YOLOv8, an advanced computer vision framework, ensures precise detection of key attributes. These combined technologies enable the identification of performance flaws and guide athletes toward achieving their goals. The solution is developed using Python, OpenCV, HAR, and YOLOv8, with IDEs like VSCode and Jupyter Notebook facilitating its implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Science and Research ArchiveSame topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207