MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070214804 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181a4e7f0

Lower Limb Maximal Dynamic Strength and Agility Determinants in Elite Basketball Players

2009· article· en· W2070214804 on OpenAlexaff
Anis Chaouachi, Matt Brughelli, Karim Chamari, Greg Levin, Nidhal Ben Abdelkrim, Louis Laurencelle, Carlo Castagna

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresInnovation and Economic Development Trois Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBasketballSprintSquatMathematicsPhysical therapyPsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aims of this study were to examine the relationship between squat 1 repetition maximum (1RM) and basketball-relevant tests and the variables that influence agility (T-test) in elite male professional basketball players (n = 14, age 23.3 +/- 2.7 years, height 195.6 +/- 8.3 cm, body mass 94.2 +/- 10.2 kg). T-test performance was significantly related to body mass (r = 0.58, p = 0.03) and to percentage of body fat (r = 0.80, p < 0.001). A significant negative correlation was observed between t-test and 5-jump test performance (r = -0.61, p = 0.02). Squat 1RM was significantly related to 5-, 10-, and 30-m sprint times. Stepwise correlation analysis showed percentage of body fat was the best single predictor factor (p < 0.05) of agility. Squat 1RM performance was the best single predictor of 5-m and 10-m sprint times (p < 0.05). In light of the present study's findings, agility should be regarded as a per se physiological ability for elite basketball players. Consequently, basketball-specific agility drills should be stressed in elite basketball training. Given the association between squat 1RM performance and short sprint times, squat exercises should be a major component of basketball conditioning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations208
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207