Pacing Patterns in Competitive Rowing Adopted in Different Race Categories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from 7 World Rowing Championships between 2001 and 2009 were analyzed to determine the time distribution during 2,000-m heavyweight races (from 500-m quarter times) and to assess whether pacing patterns differ between boat classes (single vs. team boats) and qualifying rounds (heats vs. finals). Analyses of variance with repeated measures on quarter times revealed that pacing patterns in heat races were better described (i.e., higher amount of variance explained) by a linear trend line with a positive slope (women: η² = 0.76, men: η² = 0.68) but followed a quadratic trend line (parabolic-shaped pattern) during finals (women: η² = 0.81, men: η² = 0.60). Not using a spurt at the end of the heat races may indicate an attempt to conserve energy for subsequent rounds or reflect reduced effort made by losing crews or both aspects. In single boats, the pacing pattern was better represented by a linear trend line with a positive slope (women: η² = 0.76, men: η² = 0.68), but the amount of variance explained was virtually the same for both the linear and the quadratic trend component in team boats. The absence of a final spurt in single boat races suggests that the physiological status of the athlete plays an important role to control the timing and rate of decline in rowing speed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".