The Relationship between Speed and Technical Development in Young Speed Skaters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Long Term Athletic Development Plan (LTAD) defines the first ‘window of accelerated adaptation to speed’ or a ‘critical’ period of speed development as occurring during the FUNdamentals stage, age six to eight for girls and seven to nine for boys respectively. However, technical sport specific skill development is not recommended until the Learn to Train Stage. Utilizing a model of body composition, this study looks at the relationship between technical and speed development in young speed skaters ages 3 – 15. The results indicate that in both females and males, individuals with larger body composition had faster speeds but individuals with smaller body composition and with greater technical skill were as fast as or faster than those with larger body composition regardless of technical skill. The results support the conclusion that no “windows of trainability” for speed development need to exist as long as technical components are taught early to build neurological connections and fortify coordination to develop speed prepubescent, and technical development is maintained to allow skaters to adjust to increased muscular strength during pubescence and post-pubescence.
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 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".