A REVIEW ON THE CHANGES OF THE EVALUATION SYSTEM AFFECTING ARTISTIC GYMNASTS’ BASIC PREPARATION: THE ASPECT OF CHOREOGRAPHY PREPARATION
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
The Code of Points, the International Gymnastics Federation document directing gymnasts’ training process in every Olympic Cycle, evaluates artistic gymnastics performances. The aim of this study was twofold: first to examine the most important changes of the Code of Points since 1996, affecting gymnasts’ basic preparation and in particular the changes concerning choreography. Second, this paper aimed to review the relevant literature on the topic of choreography preparation in artistic gymnastics and to analyze finalists’ performances in official competitions, thus exploring the contribution of choreography preparation in gymnasts’ difficulty score. For the purpose of the present study Women’s Artistic Gymnastics Codes of Points since 1996 were analyzed. In addition, the content of the finalists performances on floor exercises and balance beam in the Olympic Games of London 2012, World Championship in Antwerp, 2013 and European Championship in Moscow 2013 were also analyzed. The results of this study demonstrated that basic preparation of artistic gymnasts is an ongoing process, structured on the principles of “profile elements” and virtuosity of execution. Gymnasts’ basic preparation focuses on choreography as a means of faultless execution and at the same time choreography preparation provides a new direction of developing difficulty while slowing down the “acrobatisation” and preserving the aesthetic quality of the sport.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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