MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087686540 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2010.543912

The effect of critical speed and exercise intensity on stroke phase duration and bilateral asymmetry in 200-m front crawl swimming

2011· article· en· W2087686540 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Barden, Robert T. Kell, Dylan Kobsar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFront crawlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationIntensity (physics)Stroke (engine)Front (military)Duration (music)MedicinePhysical therapyPhysicsMeteorologyAcousticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this study was to determine the absolute temporal relationship between the power and recovery phases of the stroke cycle in front crawl swimming in response to progressive changes in exercise intensity that occurred before and after critical speed. A second objective was to determine whether intensity-related changes in the power/recovery phase relationship affects the bilateral symmetry of the stroke. Stroke parameters were recorded for each 25-m length during a progressive 200-m interval training set, in which eight (2 males, 6 females) national-level swimmers swam at intensities below, above, and at critical speed. The results demonstrated that substantial increases in stroke rate (P < 0.01) occurred at critical speed, and that these increases were related to a greater decrease in the duration of the power phase than the recovery phase (P < 0.01). The results also show that the degree of bilateral asymmetry was greater for the power phase than the recovery phase, and was inversely related to intensity in both phases of the stroke cycle. The findings of this study suggest that critical speed-related increases in stroke rate are an indirect consequence of increased force production in the power phase of the stroke, and that bilateral asymmetry is both intensity- and stroke-phase dependent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207