Examining the Learning Effects of Segmented Model Demonstrations on the Motor & Cognitive Learning of the Basketball Jump Shot
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present experiment was to determine whether learning is optimized when providing the opportunity to observe either segments, or the whole basketball jump shot. Participants performed 50 jump-shots from the free throw line during acquisition, and returned one day later for a 10 shot retention test and a memory recall test of the jump-shot technique. Shot accuracy was assessed on a 5-point scale and technique assessed on a 7-point scale. The number of components recalled correctly by participants assessed mental representation. Retention results showed superior shot technique and recall success for those participants provided control over the frequency and type of modelled information compared to participants not provided control. Furthermore, participants in the self-condition utilized the part-model information more frequently than whole-model information highlighting the effectiveness of providing the learner control over viewing multiple segments of a skill compared to only watching the whole model.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it