Comparison of a double poling ergometer and field test for elite cross country sit skiers.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sport specific ergometers are important for laboratory testing (i.e. peak oxygen consumption (VO(2))) and out of season training. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare cardiorespiratory variables during exercise on a double poling ergometer to a field test in elite sit skiers. METHODS: Three male and four female athletes from the Canadian National / Developmental team (17-54 years of age, six with complete paraplegia and one with cerebral palsy) completed a field test and a double poling ergometer protocol separated by at least 24 hours. Both protocols consisted of three maximal trials of skiing of three minutes duration separated by 1.5 minutes of rest. A wireless metabolic system and heart rate monitor were used to measure cardiorespiratory responses [peak heart rate, peak VO(2), and peak respiratory exchange ratio (RER)] during each test. Arterialized blood lactate was measured before the beginning of exercise, after each trial and at 5, 10 and 15 minutes post exercise. RESULTS: No significant differences existed between the field and ergometer tests for peak oxygen consumption (VO(2)) (field=34.7±5.5 mL·kg-1·min-1 vs. ergometer=33.4±6.9 mL·kg-1·min-1). Significantly higher peak heart rate and RER were found during the ergometer test. Significantly higher lactates were found during the ergometer test after trial 2 and trial 3. CONCLUSION: The double poling ergometer is similar to a field test for evaluating peak VO(2) in elite cross country sit skiers; however, the ergometer test elicits a higher heart rate and anaerobic response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".