Physiological profile of professional hockey players - a longitudinal comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the size, strength, and aerobic fitness of players from a professional hockey team. Beginning in 1917, data on body size were obtained from historical records of the Montreal Canadiens. Body composition, strength, and VO2 max were obtained through physiological testing of Canadiens players between 1981 and 2003. Compared with players in the 1920s and 1930s, current players were an average of 17 kg heavier and 10 cm taller, with BMI increased by 2.3 kg/m2. The gain in BMI was not attributed to added fat mass, since percent body fat remained unchanged over the past 22 years. From 1992 to 2003, upper body strength was assessed using a bench press test. Predicted 1 repetition maximum (1 RM) for the 17- to 19-year-old group was 107.0 kg with the highest values attained by the 25- to 29-year-old age group (128.1 kg). Gains in body mass were associated with an increase in upper body strength. VO(2 max) was measured annually on a treadmill between 1992 and 2003 with annual mean values ranging between 54.6 and 59.2 mL x (kg x min)(-1). Compared with values from players in the early 1980s, VO2 max has increased with the improvements independent of body mass; however, given the variability in the data, we are hesitant to infer that VO(2 max) has increased significantly during the 1990s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".