MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409793696 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-225

The Construction and Practice of Digital Inheritance Mode of Traditional Sports Programs

2025· article· en· W4409793696 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicE-commerce and Technology Innovations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInheritance (genetic algorithm)Mode (computer interface)SociologyComputer scienceBiologyHuman–computer interactionGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inheriting national sports culture plays an important role in promoting national culture and national spirit.The digitization technology's has played a role in promoting the development and dissemination of traditional sports culture.Based on the digitization model of traditional sports and related research materials and audience comments, the article extracts effective data to construct a model of the influence factors of digitization of traditional sports.Trust, cultural confidence, inheritance willingness, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, inheritance resistance and technology anxiety are taken as eight latent variables.Relevant hypotheses are proposed for the relationship among the eight variables.Through the questionnaire method, 321 valid data collected were validated and analyzed.Including the use of structural theory model for reliability analysis, correlation analysis, path coefficient test, etc., it is finally concluded that the mediating effect of perceived usefulness and willingness to pass on is obvious, while the mediating effect of perceived ease of use is relatively insignificant, and it cannot play a significant role of acceptance between resistance to passing on to audience acceptance.Trust, cultural confidence, perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and inheritance willingness are positive feedback relationships to audience acceptance, and inheritance resistance to inheritance willingness and technology anxiety to audience acceptance are negative feedback relationships.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicE-commerce and Technology InnovationsFrench-language works237,207