Comparison of Two Aerobic Field Tests in Young Tennis Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares the maximal responses of a new aerobic tennis field test, the NAVTEN to a known aerobic field test, often used with young tennis players, that is, the continuous multistage 20-m shuttle run test (20-m SRT). The NAVTEN is an intermittent (1-minute/1-minute) multistage test with side-to-side displacements and ball hitting. Ten young elite tennis players aged 12.9 ± 0.3 (mean ± SD) randomly performed both tests and were continuously monitored for heart rate (HR) and oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2) using the Vmax ST (Sensormedics). The 20-m SRT and NAVTEN show similar HRpeak (202 ± 6.1 vs. 208 ± 9.5, respectively) and V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak (54.2 ± 5.9 vs. 54.9 ± 6.0 ml·kg·min). Pearson correlations between both tests were 0.88 and 0.92 for V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak and maximal speed, respectively. The NAVTEN yielded V[Combining Dot Above]O2peak values that are typical for active subjects of that age and are similar to the 20-m SRT supporting its use to measure aerobic fitness of young tennis players in specific and entertaining field conditions. The fact that two-thirds of the tennis players achieved a different ranking (±1 rank) with the NAVTEN and the 20-m SRT suggests that the NAVTEN may be more specific than the 20-m SRT to assess aerobic fitness of tennis players. From a practical point of view, the NAVTEN test is more specific and pedagogical for young tennis players even though both tests yield similar maximal values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".