Показатели возраста и физического развития высококвалифицированных хоккеистов различного амплуа
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Article is devoted to the statistical analysis of age, growth and weight of 277 hockey players of various role of six strongest teams participating in the Olympic Games in Turin (2006) and in Vancouver (2010). Position and variation indicators have been analyzed. For checking of the statistical hypotheses the dispersive analysis, and also the criteria of Student and Fischer have been used. On the Olympic Games in Turin (2006) the defenders authentically surpassed by growth and mass of the body (р≤0.01) the forwards. Variability of growth and weight of the body of goalkeepers was authentically below, than forwards (р≤0.01) and defenders (р≤0.001). In the Olympic Games in Vancouver (2010) the reliable distinctions in age and growth of goalkeepers, forwards and defenders has not been established (р>0,05). The defenders are reliably heavier than forwards (р≤0.05). Variability of growth and weight of the body of goalkeepers is lower, than forwards and defenders, however distinctions are doubtful (р>0.05). Disappearance of reliable distinctions in growth of the players of various role (forwards and defenders), can be connected with the fact that in modern hockey the tendency in preparation of the universal athletes, capable to carry out functions, both forwards, and defenders is shown. Low variability of growth and weight of goalkeepers testifies that higher demands are made to indicators of physical development of goalkeepers in comparison with the forwards and defenders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".