MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Postactivation potentiation in endurance-trained male athletes

2000· article· en· W2012101089 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsometric exerciseMedicineAnklePhysical medicine and rehabilitationAthletesElbowPhysical therapysedPlantar flexionMuscle fatigueElectromyographyInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to determine whether postactivation potentiation (PAP) was enhanced in the trained muscles of male endurance athletes. METHODS: Triathletes (TRI), distance runners (RUN), active controls (AC), and sedentary control subjects (SED) (N = 10 per group) performed 10-s maximal isometric contractions (MVC) of the elbow extensor and ankle plantarflexor muscles. Maximal twitch contractions were evoked (percutaneous stimulation) before and during a 5-min period after the MVC. PAP was measured as the percentage change in peak twitch torque post-MVC. RESULTS: TRI, who train both upper and lower limb muscles, had enhanced (relative to SED) PAP in both elbow extensor and plantarflexor muscles. In RUN, who train only the lower limbs, enhanced PAP was restricted to the plantarflexors. AC, whose main activity was upper and lower limb weight training, also had enhanced PAP in both muscle groups, although the enhancement in the plantarflexors was not as great as in TRI and RUN. CONCLUSION: PAP is enhanced in endurance athletes. Enhanced PAP may counteract fatigue during endurance exercise. The mechanism(s) responsible for the enhanced PAP remain to be determined.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.260 · 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