Three-dimensional kinematics of the lower limbs during forward ice hockey skating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of the study were to describe lower limb kinematics in three dimensions during the forward skating stride in hockey players and to contrast skating techniques between low- and high-calibre skaters. Participant motions were recorded with four synchronized digital video cameras while wearing reflective marker triads on the thighs, shanks, and skates. Participants skated on a specialized treadmill with a polyethylene slat bed at a self-selected speed for 1 min. Each participant completed three 1-min skating trials separated by 5 min of rest. Joint and limb segment angles were calculated within the local (anatomical) and global reference planes. Similar gross movement patterns and stride rates were observed; however, high-calibre participants showed a greater range and rate of joint motion in both the sagittal and frontal planes, contributing to greater stride length for high-calibre players. Furthermore, consequent postural differences led to greater lateral excursion during the power stroke in high-calibre skaters. In conclusion, specific kinematic differences in both joint and limb segment angle movement patterns were observed between low- and high-calibre skaters.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".