Comparison of skating kinetics and kinematics on ice and on a synthetic surface
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 recent popularization and technological improvements of synthetic or artificial ice surfaces provide an attractive alternative to real ice in venues where the latter is impractical to install. Potentially, synthetic ice (SI) may be installed in controlled laboratory settings to permit detailed biomechanical analysis of skating manoeuvres. Unknown, however, is the extent to which skating on SI replicates skating on traditional ice (ICE). Hence, the purpose of this study was to compare kinetic and kinematic forward skating parameters between SI and ICE surfaces. With 11 male hockey players, a portable strain gauge system adhered to the outside of the skate blade holder was used to measure skate propulsive force synchronized with electrogoniometers for tracking dynamic knee and ankle movements during forward skating acceleration. In general, the kinetic and kinematic variables investigated in this study showed minimal differences between the two surfaces (P > 0.06), and no individual variable differences were identified between the two surfaces (P > or = 0.1) with the exception of greater knee extension on SI than ICE (15.2 degrees to 11.0 degrees; P < or = 0.05). Overall, SI surfaces permit comparable mechanics for on-ice forward skating, and thus offer the potential for valid analogous conditions for in-lab testing and training.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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