MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409787631 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-376

Shortest Path Algorithm Based Cheerleading Formation Design and Movement Coordination Optimization in Colleges and Universities under Multi-Intelligent Body Environment

2025· article· en· W4409787631 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)Movement (music)Shortest path problemComputer scienceOptimization algorithmAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceSimulationHuman–computer interactionMathematical optimizationTheoretical computer scienceMathematicsComputer networkPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cheerleading events are flourishing in China, the level of competition is rising, the number of competition groups and programs is increasing, the competition is becoming more and more intense, and the innovative research on formation design is an inevitable demand for the development trend of cheerleading.The study designed a multi-objective path planning model based on the intensity of willingness and consultation strategy, so that college cheerleading can avoid conflicts and reach the goal point of cheerleaders in the complex environment.Then an improved multiobjective particle swarm algorithm (MOPSO-CA) based on metacellular automata is proposed and applied to college cheerleading formations to realize the design of college cheerleading formations.The simulation results show that the MOPSO-CA algorithm can re-select the optimal movement direction angle according to the real-time positions of the moving obstacles and moving targets, which illustrates the effectiveness of the algorithm.Secondly the feasibility of the formation design conditions are suggested as: keeping the originality of the movement, the use of the moving route of the formation and the space of the venue, and the type of formation change.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207