MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014871707 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e318242a4d3

Potential Beneficial Effects of Whole-Body Vibration for Muscle Recovery After Exercise

2011· review· en· W2014871707 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

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEffects of Vibration on Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhole body vibrationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineMassageEccentric exerciseMuscle damageDelayed onset muscle sorenessAthletesEccentricPhysical therapyCryotherapyReflexAnesthesiaVibrationInternal medicineSurgeryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kosar, AC, Candow, DG, and Putland, JT. Potential beneficial effects of whole-body vibration for muscle recovery after exercise. J Strength Cond Res 26(10): 2907–2911, 2012—Whole-body vibration is an emerging strategy used by athletes and exercising individuals to potentially accelerate muscle recovery. The vibration elicits involuntary muscle stretch reflex contractions leading to increased motor unit recruitment and synchronization of synergist muscles, which may lead to greater training adaptations over time. Intense exercise training, especially eccentric muscle contractions, will inevitably lead to muscle damage and delayed onset muscle soreness, which may interfere with the maintenance of a planned training program. Whole-body vibration before and after exercise shows promise for attenuating muscle soreness and may be considered as an adjunct to traditional therapies (i.e., massage, cryotherapy) to accelerate muscle recovery.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.344 · 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