MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090121396 · doi:10.1519/r-14653.1

Postactivation Potentiation and Its Practical Applicability: A Brief Review

2005· review· en· W2090121396 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLong-term potentiationAdaptation (eye)ExploitPsychologyMedicineNeuroscienceIntensive care medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceCognitive psychologyInternal medicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that postactivation potentiation (PAP) may be manipulated to enhance both acute performance and chronic adaptation. PAP refers to the phenomenon by which acute muscle force output is enhanced as a result of contractile history. Evidence exists regarding the existence of PAP. However, the determination of methods to best manipulate and exploit PAP remains elusive. Studies to date would seem to indicate that the practical applicability of PAP in terms of enhancing athletic performance is limited.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.337 · 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