Physiologic Responses of Competitive Canadian Cross-Country Skiers With Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the acute cardiorespiratory and metabolic responses in competitive cross-country skiers with disabilities. DESIGN: Cross-sectional comparisons using a select group of Canadian athletes training for the Vancouver 2010 Paralympic Winter Games. SETTING: Canmore Nordic Centre Provincial Park, Canmore, Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Nine competitive cross-country skiers (4 with visual impairment, 1 with traumatic brain injury, 3 with spinal cord injury, and 1 with cerebral palsy). INTERVENTIONS: Three-minute and 12-minute exercise tests in the standing or sitting skiing position to voluntary fatigue. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiorespiratory responses using a telemetric system to compare the physiologic responses among the athletes with different disabilities. Heart rate (HR) and capillary lactate were measured at 2, 5, and 10 minutes of recovery. RESULTS: The t test results indicated that the peak values of the absolute and relative oxygen uptake (VO2peak), HR, and ventilation rate were significantly higher during the 12-minute compared with the 3-minute protocol during standing skiing. However, the oxygen pulse and ventilatory equivalent for oxygen ratio were not significantly (P > 0.05) different between the 2 protocols. Analysis of variance revealed no significant (P > 0.05) differences among the 3 trials for these peak physiologic responses during sitting skiing. Cross-sectional comparisons of the peak physiologic responses between the standing and sitting skiers indicated significantly (P < 0.05) higher values in the standing compared with the sitting position. Cardiorespiratory respiratory efficiency was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in the sitting compared with the standing position. HR during 10 minutes of recovery was significantly correlated with VO2peak. Pearson correlations were not significant between VO2peak and lactate removal during recovery. CONCLUSION: These descriptive findings during the standing and sitting skiing protocols provide preliminary data that would be useful in testing, training, and classification of competitive skiers with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".