MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079255015 · doi:10.1519/17375.1

Physical and Performance Differences Among Forwards, Defensemen, and Goalies in Elite Women's Ice Hockey

2006· article· en· W2079255015 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina A. Geithner, Amanda M. Lee, Michael R. Bracko

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVertical jumpSprintAnthropometrySomatotypesIce hockeyMathematicsPopulationAnaerobic exerciseStatisticsMulti-stage fitness testPsychologyAthletesTest (biology)Physical therapyDemographyPhysical fitnessMedicineJumpPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positional differences have been examined in women's basketball, field hockey, netball, and volleyball, but not in elite women's ice hockey. Our purpose was to describe and compare physical, fitness, and skating performance characteristics of forwards (F), defensemen (D), and goalies (G). Subjects were 112 University of Alberta women players (21.4 +/- 2.9 years of age). A full anthropometric battery was conducted on each player. Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotypes were calculated. Percent body fat (%fat) was estimated from both general and population-specific equations. Subjects performed off-ice fitness tests (vertical jump, 40-yd dash, Leger test for predicting .V(O2)max) and on-ice fitness (Modified 3-Repeat Sprint Skate Test-MRSS, blood lactate after sprint test) and skating performance tests (6.10-m acceleration test, Cornering S-Turn Agility Test). Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses of variance were run using SPSS (Version 10.0) for the MacIntosh, with a significance level set a priori at p < 0.05. Significant positional differences were found for bicristal breadths (D > G, F > G); relaxed arm circumference (D > F, G > F); supraspinale and biceps skinfolds (G > D, G > F); and endomorphy (G > F). Significant differences among positions were also found for the MRSS (G > D > F) and agility tests (G > D, G > F). D tended to have the most robust build overall. F were leaner than D and G, and their smaller relaxed arm circumference measurements most likely reflect less subcutaneous fat on the upper arm. F had greater anaerobic power than D, followed by G, and they tended to have greater aerobic capacity. F and D were more agile than G. Performance demands appear to be position specific. F need to be the most versatile and fit because of a greater amount and variety of work performed both during practices and games; their required degrees of versatility and fitness are followed by those required of D and G.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations60
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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