The intra-match home advantage in Australian rules football
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The existence of home advantage in Australian Rules football (AFL) has been well documented in previous literature. This advantage typically refers to the net advantage of several factors which, generally speaking, have a positive effect on the home team and a negative effect on the away team. However, this practice excludes the in-course dynamics of home advantage throughout the match including the interrelationship between pre-game and in-game team characteristics. The aim of the present study is to calculate the intra-match home advantage for each quarter in AFL by incorporating the interaction between team quality and current score. Archival AFL data was obtained from seasons 2000 to 2009 which consisted of year, round, quarter, (nominal) home team, away team, home team score and away team score. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) on margin of victory was used to determine if there was a distinct difference between team quality (favourite/underdog) within current score (ahead/behind). Since the in-game team characteristics (current score) are likely to be caused by pre-game characteristics (team quality) the margin of victory is adjusted for team quality. The results provide marginal evidence that home underdogs in the third quarter irrespective of whether they were ahead or behind at half time receive a greater advantage than home favourites. Furthermore, home advantage is greatest in the final quarter when there is a high level of uncertainty about the outcome of the match. © 2011 American Statistical Association. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".