MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987362195 · doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e31818c1300

Electromyography and Kinematics of the Trunk during Rowing in Elite Female Rowers

2009· article· en· W1987362195 on OpenAlexaffabout
Courtney L. Pollock, Thomas R. Jenkyn, I. Chester Jones, Tanya D. Ivanova, S. Jayne Garland

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRowingTrunkPelvisElectromyographyMedicineKinematicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationLumbarBiomechanicsAnatomyPhysical therapyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the EMG of trunk muscles together with kinematics of the pelvis and the spine of elite female rowers during the rowing stroke. METHODS: Nine Rowing Canada national team candidates performed a 2000-m race simulation. EMG activity of spinal and pelvic extensor and flexor muscles and kinematic data of the pelvis and the spine were collected and analyzed during the period of peak force production. RESULTS: During this period, pelvic and spinal extensor muscles demonstrated similarities in the timing of muscle activity with minimal coactivation of flexors and extensors. Minimal excursion of spinal segments occurred during the stroke with most of the extension occurring at the pelvis. Flexor activity occurred toward late drive, suggesting that trunk extension is slowed by increasing activity of the flexor muscles. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides data of trunk kinematics and muscle recruitment patterns in elite female rowers. During the period of peak force production, there is minimal coactivation of trunk flexor and extensor muscles and, of the spinal segments, L3-S1 shows the most movement, which may make it more susceptible to soft tissue injury.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations65
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationFrench-language works237,207