Determination of aerobic work and power on a rope-braked cycle ergometer by direct measurement
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
The purpose of this study was to compare the power and work outputs of a cycle ergometer using the manufacturer's guidelines, with calculations using direct flywheel velocity and brake torque. A further aim was to compare the values obtained with those supplied by the manufacturer. A group of 10 male participants were asked to pedal a Monark 824E ergometer at a constant cadence of 60 r/min for a period of 3 min against a resistive mass of 3 kg. The flywheel velocity was measured using a tachometer. The brake force was determined by measuring the tension in the rope on either side of the flywheel. The calculated mean power was 147.45 +/- 6.5 W compared with the Monark value of 183 +/- 3.7 W. The difference between the methods for power estimation was 18% and was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The mean work done by the participants during the 3 min period was found to be 26 460 +/- 1145 J compared with the Monark value of 33,067 +/- 648 J (p < 0.01). The Monark formulae currently used to determine the power and work done by a participant overestimates the actual values required to overcome the resistance. There findings have far-reaching implications in the physiological assessment of athletic, sedentary, and diseased populations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it