Time Motion Analysis and Physiological Profile of Canadian World Cup Wheelchair Basketball Players
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time elite wheelchair basketball players spent performing various game activities during a World Cup game, measure the heart rate response during such activity, and describe the physiological profile of each player participating in the game. Six male members of the Canadian World Cup wheelchair basketball team were videotaped during an entire game to determine the time spent performing seven different categories of activity. Time motion analysis indicated that players spent 8.9% of the game time sprinting, 23.5% gliding, 18.2% contesting for ball possession, 0.6% sprinting with the ball, 0.3% shooting, and 48.3% resting on the bench and floor. Twenty percent (20%) of game time was played at an intensity above the ventilatory threshold. The group mean value for peak oxygen uptake during incremental wheelchair exercise on rollers was 2.60L/min and group mean peak 5 and 30 second anaerobic power development on an arm crank ergometer was 486.3 W and 336.8 W, respectively, suggest that training for and playing elite wheelchair basketball induces significant improvement in these tests of fitness. Key Words: Maximum Heart RateAerobicAnaerobicPerformance Disability
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it