MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053262646 · doi:10.1519/14183.1

Effect of Selected Recovery Conditions on Performance of Repeated Bouts of Intermittent Cycling Separated by 24 Hours

2004· article· en· W2053262646 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 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCyclingMedicineMassageImmersion (mathematics)Animal sciencePhysical therapyMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of active recovery (AR), massage (MR), and cold water immersion (CR) on performance of repeated bouts of high-intensity cycling separated by 24 hours. For each recovery condition, subjects were asked to take part in 2 intermittent cycling sessions; 18 minutes of varying work intervals performed in succession at a resistance of 80 g/kg body weight separated by 24 hours. One of four 15-minute recovery conditions immediately followed the first session and included: (a) AR, cycling at 30% Vo(2)max; (b) CR, immersion of legs in a 15 degrees C water bath; (c) MR, massage of the legs; and (d) control, seated rest. Only the control condition showed a significant decline in the total work completed between the first and second exercise sessions (108.1 +/- 5.4 kJ vs. 106.0 +/- 5.0 kJ, p < 0.05). Thus, AR, MR, and CR appeared to facilitate the recovery process between 2 high-intensity, intermittent exercise sessions separated by 24 hours.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.314 · 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