MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094878678 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0b013e31824d2eeb

Jet Lag and Travel Fatigue

2012· article· en· W2094878678 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Samuels

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sleep & Circadian Network
FundersUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsAthletesLagMedicineJet (fluid)Psychological interventionPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationApplied psychologyComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringNursingAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact of transcontinental travel and high-volume travel on athletes can result in physiologic disturbances and a complicated set of physical symptoms. Jet lag and travel fatigue have been identified by athletes, athletic trainers, coaches, and physicians as important but challenging problems that could benefit from practical solutions. Currently, there is a culture of disregard and lack of knowledge regarding the negative effects of jet lag and travel fatigue on the athlete's well-being and performance. In addition, the key physiologic metric (determination of the human circadian phase) that guides jet lag treatment interventions is elusive and thus limits evidence-based therapeutic advice. A better understanding of preflight, in-flight, and postflight management options, such as use of melatonin or the judicious application of sedatives, is important for the sports clinician to help athletes limit fatigue symptoms and maintain optimal performance. The purpose of this article was to provide a practical applied method of implementing a travel management program for athletic teams.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations137
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207