Shoe traction and surface compliance affect performance of soccer-related movements
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To determine how shoe-surface interaction, specifically traction and compliance, affects performance and biomechanics of soccer-related movements.Methods: Third generation artificial turf was installed in the laboratory to allow for kinetic and kinematic data collection both on the turf and on a laboratory surface (Pulastic sports surface). Twelve male athletes performed five 5 m sprint accelerations and five 180° sprint turns in three different shoe-surface conditions (indoor soccer shoe on the laboratory surface, indoor soccer shoe on the turf surface, soccer cleat on turf surface). Comparisons between the indoor shoe across surfaces indicated compliance effects and comparisons between the cleat and indoor shoe on turf indicated traction effects.Results: Performance increased for the sprint acceleration in the indoor shoe on the turf compared to the laboratory (1.04 s vs. 1.08 s); however, no further increase in acceleration performance occurred with the soccer cleat. For the turn movement, no change in performance occurred comparing the indoor shoe across surfaces however an increase in turn performance was seen when using the soccer cleat on turf compared to the indoor shoe (2.67 s vs. 2.56 s). The cleat had both increased utilised translational and rotational traction compared to the indoor shoe on turf for the turn movement. The cleat also resulted in increased ankle eversion moments as well as increased knee abduction and external rotation moments compared to the indoor shoe on the turf surface for the turn movement.Conclusion: Both compliance and traction shoe-surface characteristics affect performance; however, the effects of the different characteristics are different depending on the movement type.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it