Impact of the initial classic section during a simulated cross-country skiing skiathlon on the cardiopulmonary responses during the subsequent period of skate skiing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess potential changes in the performance and cardiorespiratory responses of elite cross-country skiers following transition from the classic (CL) to the skating (SK) technique during a simulated skiathlon. Eight elite male skiers performed two 6 km (2 × 3 km) roller-skiing time trials on a treadmill at racing speed: one starting with the classic and switching to the skating technique (CL1-SK2) and another employing the skating technique throughout (SK1-SK2), with continuous monitoring of gas exchanges, heart rates, and kinematics (video). The overall performance times in the CL1-SK2 (21:12 ± 1:24) and SK1-SK2 (20:48 ± 2:00) trials were similar, and during the second section of each performance times and overall cardiopulmonary responses were also comparable. However, in comparison with SK1-SK2, the CL1-SK2 trial involved significantly higher increases in minute ventilation (V̇E, 89.8 ± 26.8 vs. 106.8 ± 17.6 L·min(-1)) and oxygen uptake (V̇O2; 3.1 ± 0.8 vs 3.5 ± 0.5 L·min(-1)) 2 min after the transition as well as longer time constants for V̇E, V̇O2, and heart rate during the first 3 min after the transition. This higher cardiopulmonary exertion was associated with ∼3% faster cycle rates. In conclusion, overall performance during the 2 time trials did not differ. The similar performance times during the second sections were achieved with comparable mean cardiopulmonary responses. However, the observation that during the initial 3-min post-transition following classic skiing cardiopulmonary responses and cycle rates were slightly higher supports the conclusion that an initial section of classic skiing exerts an impact on performance during a subsequent section of skate skiing.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".