Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weightlifting training and competition involves lifting a revolving shaft bar loaded with weights. The design of a bar and the location of the weights result in bar deformation during lifting tasks. Because there are many manufacturers of weightlifting bars, the actual deformation of a bar may vary, depending on the steel alloys used. A modified 4-point static bending test was used to assess deformation of 8 weightlifting bars and 1 general purpose weight training bar. The apparent stiffness of the bars was determined by plotting bending moment vs. bar deformation (the vertical height difference between the center vs. ends of the bar). All bars tested had an absence of hysteresis during cyclic loading and unloading in 50-kg increments (up to 220-kg total barbell weight), demonstrating pure elastic properties. At maximum loading, bar deformation was 4-5 cm. A large range existed for apparent stiffness. Based on apparent stiffness calculations, recommendations are made for which bars are suitable for weightlifting training and competition. The deformable nature of weightlifting and weight training bars should be considered before their use in exercise, sport, or research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".