RPE Angle Effects in Young and Middle-Aged Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine contraction intensity and arm abduction angle effects on perceived exertion between healthy young (n=14) and middle-aged (n=13) adults. Subjects participated in three separate experimental sessions during which, maximal (MVC) and sub-maximal (10-90% MVC, 10% increments, random order) arm abduction contractions were performed at one of the following randomly assigned angles: 30, 60 and 90 degrees Perceived exertion was sampled with a modified Borg category-ratio scale following each sub-maximal contraction. Voluntary arm abduction torque was significantly (p<0.05) greatest at 30 degrees , as compared to 60 degrees and 90 degrees , while no significant differences were observed between the young and middle-aged adults. Perceived exertion was significantly (p<0.05) greatest at 90 degrees abduction, as compared to 30 degrees and 60 degrees , and was not different between the two age groups. Power function modeling revealed that perceived exertion was significantly (p<0.05) fit to negatively accelerating non-linear trends for the middle-aged adults at all arm angles and at 90 degrees for the young adults. The findings demonstrated greater ratings of perceived exertion at elevated arm positions, while middle-aged adults displayed a non-linear contraction intensity dependency at the lower arm elevation angles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".