Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear friends, We are entering into the fourth year of publishing Science of Gymnastics Journal. Year 2011 was successful as we published 16 articles. Articles were written by authors from Brazilia, Portugal, Serbia, Greece, Unitade States of America, Australia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Austria, United Kingdom, Belgium and Slovenia, all together from 13 countries. We were entered into the ProQuest data base, we are still testing SchoolarOne Manuscript Software, and we have a new editorial board member – Koichi Endo from Japan. From last October issue we have to apologize to the authors Luísa Amaral, José Ferreirinha, Paulo Santos and Albrecht Claessens as we did some errors in article design; you can find corrected article on our web pages. The February issue we start with the article from sport management. Mauricio Santos Oliveira and Marco Antonio Bortoleto analyzed impact of Brazilian State support to results of gymnasts. For gymnastics developing countries the experience of Brazilians can be of a high value as they have excellent gymnasts. It is worth to note between 5th and 6th October 2012 in Rio Claro (Sao Paulo State University, Brasilia) will be organized 3rd International Seminar on Artistic and Rhythmic Competitive Gymnastics. In 2010 the seminar was of a high quality with many international experts including Keith Russell, FIG Scientific Commission president. econd article is from Lurdes Ávila-Carvalho (Portugal), Panagiota Klentrou (Canada), Maria da Luz Palomero (Spain) and Eunice Lebre (Portugal) and analysis morphologic characteristics of rhytmic gymnast’s. International team detected changes in the past few years towards more healty body posture of womens involved in rhytmics. The third article comes from Greece. Authors Olivia Donti, Kalliopi Theodorakou, Spiros Kambiotis and Anstasia Donti prepared article with title Self-esteem and Trait Anxiety in Girls Practicing Competitive and Recreational Gymnastics Sports, and found important facts for artistic gymnastics coaches to deal with anxiety. The fourth article is from Croatia, Kamenka Živčić Marković, Ines Čavar and Goran Sporiš were monitoring 5-6 years old girls - gymnasts for nine months how they developed under their gymnastics program. It is worth to look at the figures with development curves as they are non linear and make us to think more about the development pathways. The fifth article deals with rhythmic gymnastics and motor learning. Greek authors Despoina Τsopani, George Dallas, N. Tasika, A. Tinto write how is more effective learning of rhythmic gymnastics for novice adult physical education students. Worth to read and re-think about our rhythmic and gymnastics programs at Universities. The sixth and the seventh article are dealing with Code of Points. German authors Thomas Heinen, Pia M. Vinken and Konstantinos Velentzas were exploring how laypeople and expert judges evaluate gymnasts’ performance. It seems they can both well evaluate the gymnasts’ performance. Perhaps the Code of Points is not too complex? Slovenian - Canadian authors Ivan Čuk, Hardy Fink and Bojan Leskošek analyzed the impact of different ways of calculating final score (difficulty and execution) on ranking. With more weight on execution, ranking would be very changed; different gymnasts would enter into finals, but Code of Points most important statement - the gymnast must include in his exercise only elements that he can perform with complete safety and with a high degree of aesthetic and technical mastery would became effective. I wish you pleasant reading and a lot of inspiration. Ivan Čuk, Editor-in-Chief
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.145 | 0.092 |
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".