The relationship of physical and physiological parameters to 2000 m simulated rowing performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to describe the physiological requirements of a 2000 m simulated rowing performance, and to examine the relationship between this performance and various physical and physiological parameters. The measurements made on 22 female and 10 male rowers included a 2000 m simulated rowing performance, height, body mass, ventilatory threshold (VT), power output at VT (PO at VT), heart rate at VT, absolute maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max), power output at VO2max (PO at VO2max), and leg and bench press one repetition maximum (1 RM). A 2000 m simulated rowing test was performed at a mean intensity of 90.2% of VO2max, 77.0% of the PO at VO2max, and at 95.8% of HRmax. Significant correlation was found between the 2000 m rowing time and a competitor's height (r= —0.83), body mass (r = ‐0.69), VT (r = ‐0.81), PO at VT (r=‐0.74), VO2max (r = ‐0.96), PO at VO2max (r = — 0.83) and all strength variables (r = —0.56 to —0.79), respectively. Stepwise multiple regression indicated that the absolute VO2max was the best predictor of 2000 m simulated rowing performance (p ≤ 0.05). It was also found that males utilize strength to a greater degree than female to perform the 2000 m simulated rowing performance trial.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".