FEATURES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARM WRESTLING IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION: 80-90s OF THE XX CENTURY – THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE XXI CENTURY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the research – to identify the features of the development of arm wrestling within the framework of international communication in the 80-90s of the 20th century – the first quarter of the 21st century. Methods and organization of research. Theoretical analysis of historical, pedagogical, specialized literature and Internet resources on the problem under study; analysis of protocols of sports competitions and statistical data; historiographic method. Research results and their discussion. The geography of the World Arm wrestling Championships is considered in the context of countries and continents. World Arm Wrestling Championships, since 1979, have been held in 24 different countries. In terms of the number of major international competitions held, the USA and Canada are in the lead with five championships each. The dynamics of the number of countries participating in the World Arm wrestling Championships from 1979 to the present has been studied. In the twentieth century, the majority of world championships were held in North America – 8, in the 21st century, there was a tendency for the majority of world championships to be held in Eastern European countries – 14. The article identifies the temporal features of the international scientific and technical development of arm wrestling in terms of publications. An analysis of the number of publications allowed us to establish that arm wrestling entered a phase of active scientific research in the world since about 1995; in the CIS countries – since about 2005. The phase of active growth of publication activity has been replaced by a phase of gradual saturation since 2017. Conclusion. The period from 1979 to 1997 can be considered an extensive phase of international arm wrestling development, associated with the involvement of an increasing number of states, including countries with great scientific potential: Western Europe, Russia and the former USSR. Since the mid-90s, a period of intensive development phase began. This is evidenced by the process of joint, interconnected research on the theory and practice of arm wrestling, including the improvement of the material and technical base, the rules of the sport, refereeing and the means and methods of training athletes.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".