METABOLIC AND FUNCTIONAL RESPONSES PLAYING TENNIS ON DIFFERENT SURFACES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare various metabolic and functional responses while playing tennis on clay and hard courts. Twelve 90-minute matches were played (6 on clay courts and 6 on hard courts) by 4 nationally ranked players. During the on-court tests, oxygen uptake (VO2) and heart rate (HR) were measured using portable systems. Capillary blood lactate concentration (LA) was measured every 10 minutes. Additionally, distance ran, playing time, resting time, and exercise to rest ratio were monitored by time-motion analysis. The statistical analysis showed that playing time was higher on clay courts than on hard courts (p < 0.05), and resting time on clay courts and hard courts was not statistically different (p > 0.05). The exercise to rest ratio was affected by the interaction between playing time and resting time, showing a longer recovery time per unit of exercise on hard courts than on clay courts (p < 0.05). Distance ran, mean HR, and mean LA were significantly higher on clay courts than on hard courts (p < 0.05). There was less fluctuation of the VO2 response on clay courts than on hard courts. Therefore, it is suggested that conditioning programs should be adjusted according to the playing surface to account for the longer playing time, greater exercise to rest ratio, increased HR and LA, and a more steady pattern of VO2 seen on clay courts.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it