MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2093175530 · doi:10.1139/h06-103

Accurate assessment of work done and power during a Wingate anaerobic test

2007· article· en· W2093175530 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kathryn L. Franklin, Rae S. Gordon, Julien S. Baker, Bruce Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrakeFlywheelWingate testWork (physics)Moment of inertiaPower (physics)TorqueAnaerobic exerciseCycle ergometerMoment (physics)RopeEngineeringAutomotive engineeringStructural engineeringMechanical engineeringPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Monark cycle ergometer is used in physiological studies to measure work done and power. In this paper, the accuracy of a Monark rope-braked cycle ergometer was examined for a Wingate anaerobic test (WAnT). The traditional method of determining brake torque fails to take into account rope-brake theory and, as the brake torque is used to determine the moment of inertia of the flywheel, a second error is introduced into the calculation to determine the work done or power. In this study, the rope tensions were measured to determine the actual brake torque. A deceleration test was carried out to determine the moment of inertia of the system. The work done by subjects of different masses was calculated for various accelerations and it was found that the traditional calculations overestimate work done and power by between 12% and 14.7%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicMuscle activation and electromyography studies→French-language works237,207→