MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990869116 · doi:10.1080/14763140802273005

Have we underestimated the kinematic and kinetic benefits of non-ballistic motion?

2008· article· en· W1990869116 on OpenAlexaff
David M. Frost, John Cronin, Robert U. Newton

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Biomechanics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsKinetic energyPhysicsMechanicsWork (physics)Ballistic limitMathematicsProjectileClassical mechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Explosive upper-body movements, with which the load is not thrown (non-ballistic), may comprise a phase during which forces are produced in opposition to the motion of the load. Thirty men completed three test sessions (free weight, ballistic, and pneumatic), each consisting of a one-repetition maximum (1-RM) and four explosive repetitions of a bench press at six loads (15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and 90% 1-RM). The end of the lifting phase for the non-ballistic conditions (free weight and pneumatic) was defined by: the point of peak barbell displacement and the point at which the vertical force became negative (positive work). When analysed by peak displacement, the ballistic condition elicited significantly greater mean velocity, force, and power at loads of 15-60% 1-RM compared with the free weight condition. When the period of negative work was removed, the mean free weight velocity, force, and power at loads below 60% 1-RM increased. Consequently, the only differences between the free weight and ballistic conditions were found at loads of 15% and 30% 1-RM. Including a period of negative work may underestimate all kinematic and kinetic variables dependent on the time to, or position of, the end of the lifting phase, for non-ballistic efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports BiomechanicsSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207