ASSESSMENT OF THE INFLUENCE OF SUCCESS OF INDIVIDUAL EVENTS ON THE RESULT OF LEADING DECATHLETES WITHIN THE OLYMPIC GAMES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The research purpose was to determine the most and least successful types of men's high-performance track and field decathlon based on the number of points scored, which influence the final results of athletes. Research methods. The study was conducted using official statistical reports from World Athletics. Data was collected on the number of points scored by the top 10 decathletes in each event at the Olympic Games from 2000 to 2024. The events that contributed the most and least points to the participants' overall scores were determined, as well as the overall performance trends of leading athletes in a given event. Research results. The study showed that over the past quarter century, the average performance of the world's leading decathletes has shown a gradual upward trend, with the events in which athletes consistently score the most points being the long jump, 100m dash, and 110m hurdles, while the 1500m dash and all three throwing events make the least contribution to the final result. Conclusion. Success in the men's decathlon is currently determined more by events that develop athletes' speed-strength potential than by upper-body strength and endurance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".