Physiological demands of women’s rugby union: time–motion analysis and heart rate response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the physical demands of women's rugby union match play using time-motion analysis and heart rate (HR) response. Thirty-eight premier club level female rugby players, ages 18-34 years were videotaped and HRs monitored for a full match. Performances were coded into 12 different movement categories: 5 speeds of locomotion (standing, walking, jogging, striding, sprinting), 4 forms of intensive non-running exertion (ruck/maul/tackle, pack down, scrum, lift) and 3 discrete activities (kick, jump, open field tackle). The main results revealed that backs spend significantly more time sprinting and walking whereas forwards spend more time in intensive non-running exertion and jogging. Forwards also had a significantly higher total work frequency compared to the backs, but a higher total rest frequency compared to the backs. In terms of HR responses, forwards displayed higher mean HRs throughout the match and more time above 80% of their maximum HR than backs. In summary, women's rugby union is characterised by intermittent bursts of high-intensity activity, where forwards and backs have similar anaerobic energy demands, but different specific match demands.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".