MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118127234 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18138885

Artificial Intelligence in Sports Analytics

2024· article· W7118127234 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Technologies in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrengths and weaknessesAthletesBig dataAnalyticsApplications of artificial intelligenceSports science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research paper investigates how artificial intelligence (AI) and data science are revolutionizing the sports industry through performance analysis, injury prediction and game strategy optimization. Artificial intelligence technologies analyze vast amounts of sports data and help athletes improve their performance by identifying strengths and weaknesses through sensors and cameras. In addition, AI models predict potential injuries based on historical data, enabling proactive measures to be taken and ensuring the safety and longevity of athletes throughout their careers. In addition, AI helps coaches optimize game strategies by providing insights for detailed game and player analysis. Despite the many advantages, the article also discusses challenges such as data protection issues, technical limitations and the acceptance of artificial intelligence among sports professionals. Overall, this research highlights the significant impact of AI and data science in improving sports performance, predicting injuries and improving game strategies, providing a glimpse into the future of smart sports analytics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it