Pacing pattern and performance during the 2008 Olympic rowing regatta
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
Abstract Data from the 2008 Olympic rowing regatta were analysed to determine the time distribution during races and to assess whether pacing patterns differ between heats and the corresponding finals. Absolute and relative sector times for all of the four 500 m race quarters were analysed, for all boats in all heavyweight heats and final races ( n =72 boats for men, n =60 boats for women). Irrespective of race type, boat rank or boat type, analyses of variance with repeated measures revealed that absolute times in the second and/or third race quarter(s) were significantly (both sexes: P< 0.001) longer than those either in the first or final quarter, resulting in a parabolic‐shaped profile. Compared with the heats, the pacing pattern adopted during the finals was significantly different (females: P< 0.013; males: P< 0.001); that is, relatively slower in the first and second race quarter but relatively faster in the last quarter. The parabolic‐shaped race profile indicates an anticipatory control of speed and energy distribution over the course of the 2000‐m race. The observed changes in pacing pattern suggest that during the finals a more conservative starting pace is used, which could be physiologically advantageous, because some energy is withheld for the final spurt.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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