Total kinetic energy production of body segments is different between racing and training paces in elite Olympic rowers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total kinetic energy (TKE) was calculated for 28 Canadian national team Olympic rowers during training on water, comparing low-stroke rates (18-22 stroke/min) and high-stroke rates (32-40 stroke/min), using video analysis. Stroke duration was normalized to 100%, beginning and ending at the "catches", with the drive phase occurring first and recovery second. Two discrete points were identified during the stroke, both occurring when the fingers had the same horizontal position as the ankles (i.e., mid-drive and mid-recovery). The ratios of recovery-to-drive TKE at these points for the entire body at low and high-stroke rates were 0.36 +/- 0.34 and 1.26 +/- 0.54 respectively. Significant differences were found for the lower leg, upper arm and forearm segments, and within the female groups. Low-stroke rate is a typical training pace and high-stroke rate is analogous to a race pace. This study demonstrates that TKE production during recovery in a race was not replicated during training. While training at low-stroke rates is vital for technique refinement, this study stresses the importance of training appropriately for the energy expenditure during high-stroke rate recovery. This is commonly overlooked by coaches and athletes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".