Relationships between anaerobic performance, field tests, and functional level of elite female wheelchair basketball athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the associations between anaerobic performance (AnP), applicable field tests, and the functional classification levels in female wheelchair basketball athletes. Methods Female wheelchair basketball athletes (N = 23; Category A, n = 9; Category B, n = 14) from the Canadian national team were evaluated using field tests and the 30-second Wingate Anaerobic Test. Measures of peak power output (PP), time to achieve peak power (tPP), mean power output (MP), and a fatigue index (FI) were used to assess AnP. A test battery evaluating seven wheelchair basketball skills was applied. Student’s t test was used to identify differences between the two main functional categories (A and B). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient were calculated to determine the significance of all relationships between the parameters of AnP, the results of the field tests, and the eight functional classification levels of the athletes (1.0-4.5 pts.). Results In all analyzed parameters, except for the field test measuring shooting skills, the results of AnP were significantly higher for Category B players. Significant relationships were observed between athletes’ classification level and AnP and the field tests except for tPP, the 5 m sprint, and the shooting test. The strongest association was observed for MP and PP, MP and FI, PP and FI (p = 0.001). Conclusions Strong associations were found between the functional classification level and AnP of the female wheelchair basketball athletes. The strongest correlation was confirmed between MP, PP, and the field test measuring the two-handed chest pass, suggesting that this test can be used to indirectly assess the anaerobic performance of female wheelchair basketball athletes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".