Laboratory 20-km Cycle Time Trial Reproducibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluated the reproducibility of laboratory based 20-km time trials in well trained versus recreational cyclists. Eighteen cyclists (age = 34 +/- 8 yrs; body mass index = 23.1 +/- 2.2 kg/m (2); VO(2max) = 4.19 +/- 0.65 L/min) completed three 20-km time trials over a month on a Velotron cycle ergometer. Average power output (PO) (W), speed, and heart rate (HR) were significantly lower in the first time trial compared to the second and third time trial. The coefficients of variation (CV) between the second and third trial of the top eight performers for average PO, time to completion, and speed were 1.2 %, 0.6 %, 0.5 %, respectively, compared to 4.8 %, 2.0 %, and 2.3 % for the bottom ten. In addition, the average HR, VO(2), and percentage of VO(2max) were similar between trials. This study demonstrated that (1) a familiarization session improves the reliability of the measurements (i.e., average PO, time to completion and speed), and (2) the CV was much smaller for the best performers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".