Physiological characteristics of elite and sub-elite badminton players
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 aims of this study were to establish the physical and physiological attributes of elite and sub-elite Malaysian male badminton players and to determine whether these attributes discriminate elite players from sub-elite players. Measurements and tests of basic anthropometry, explosive power, anaerobic recovery capacity, badminton-specific movement agility, maximum strength, and aerobic capacity were conducted on two occasions, separated by at least one day. The elite (n = 12) and sub-elite (n = 12) players' characteristics were, respectively: mean age 24.6 years (s = 3.7) and 20.5 years (s = 0.7); mass 73.2 kg (s = 7.6) and 62.7 kg (s = 4.2); stature 1.76 m (s = 0.07) and 1.71 m (s = 0.05); body fat 12.5% (s = 4.8) and 9.5% (s = 3.4); estimated VO(2max) 56.9 ml . kg(-1) . min(-1) (s = 3.7) and 59.5 ml . kg(-1) . min(-1) (s = 5.2). The elite players had greater maximum absolute strength in one-repetition maximum bench press (P = 0.015) compared with the sub-elite players. There were significant differences in instantaneous lower body power estimated from vertical jump height between the elite and sub-elite groups (P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between groups in shuttle run tests and on-court badminton-specific movement agility tests. Our results show that elite Malaysian male badminton players are taller, heavier, and stronger than their sub-elite counterparts. The test battery, however, did not allow us to discriminate between the elite and sub-elite players, suggesting that at the elite level tactical knowledge, technical skills, and psychological readiness could be of greater importance.
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 | 0.001 | 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