MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994171256 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e31825d7ff9

The Development of a Preselection Physical Fitness Training Program for Canadian Special Operations Regiment Applicants

2012· article· en· W1994171256 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark J. Carlson, Suzanne P. Jaenen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
FundersUnited States Special Operations Command
KeywordsPhysical fitnessPreparednessSelection (genetic algorithm)Task (project management)PsychologyPhysical therapyComputer scienceMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Special Operations Forces (SOF) soldiers must undergo a rigorous selection process that requires high levels of physical fitness and stamina to complete. Physical preparedness is crucial for an applicant's performance during a selection process; preselection physical training programs for SOF applicants must be specific to the demands of the selection process. The purpose of this study was to analyze the physical demands of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) Assessment Center (AC) to develop an evidence-based physical fitness program to assist future applicants to CSOR with their physical preparation. Seventy-one men volunteered to undergo a battery of fitness tests before attending the CSOR AC. Forty-six (mean [SD]: age 26.2 [4.4] years, height 176.5 [7.4] cm, body mass 82.4 [10.1] kg) of the 71 participants further volunteered to participate in the characterization of the physical demands of the AC. Heart rate (HR) data were collected during the physically demanding sessions, and a subsequent task and physiological analysis was conducted to determine key performance variables for exercise prescription. The physically demanding sessions ranged in length from 26.38 (4.24) minutes to 668.52 (30.09) minutes, with the mean HR data ranging from 169.81 (6.64) to 97.51 (6.65) b·min⁻¹, respectively. Key predictors of completion of the AC were V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (βexp: 5.92; confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-31.0), and 1-repetition maximum (1RM) squats (βexp: 5.16; CI: 1.2-22.2). The information derived from this study provided the foundation for the design of an evidence-based preparatory training program for future applicants that is reflective of the physical demands of the selection process.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.345 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207