A Comparison of the Technique of the 180° Cutting Maneuver Performed on Grass and on a Hardwood Floor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 180º cutting maneuver (also known as the 505 drill) is commonly seen in field and court sports, and it consists of a 15 m run up to a turning point, followed by a timed stop and 180º change of direction for 5 m. The purpose of this study was to determine the most effective joint movements, limb velocities and body positions to perform the 180º cutting maneuver. Additionally, the study compared the kinematics of the 505 drill performed indoors while wearing running shoes and outdoors while wearing cleats. For this study, twelve athletes executed the 505 drill indoors while wearing running shoes, and twelve executed the 505 drill outdoors while wearing cleats. Fifty nine independent variables were measured for each athlete and compared to the athlete’s time to complete the test. Mean test time was 2.27 seconds for the indoor group and a significantly lower 2.47 s for the outdoor group. Correlation analysis and forward stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed on both groups to determine which variables were significantly related to test time. Trunk forward lean at push off of the jab leg was most highly correlated to test time for the indoor athletes (r= -0.887), however, flexion at maximum flexion of the jab knee was most highly correlated to test time for the outdoor group (r= -0.748). Outdoor athletes could benefit from assuming a lower and more flexed body position similar to the indoor athletes and attain a greater degree of trunk lean at jab leg touchdown.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".