Regular- and postseason comparisons of playing time and measures of running performance in NCAA Division I women soccer players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of playing time in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) soccer athletes may be a key factor affecting running performance during competition. This study compared playing time and running performance between regular-season and postseason competitions during a competitive women's soccer season. Nine NCAA Division I women soccer players (age, 21.3 ± 0.9 years; height, 170.3 ± 5.7 cm; body mass, 64.0 ± 5.8 kg) were tracked using portable GPS devices across 21 games during a competitive season (regular season (n = 17); postseason (n = 4)). Movements on the field were divided into operationally distinct thresholds defined as standing/transient motion, walking, jogging, low-speed running, moderate-speed running, high-speed running, sprinting, low-intensity running, and high-intensity running. A significant increase in minutes played (+17%, p = 0.010) was observed at postseason compared with the regular season. Concomitant increases in time spent engaged in low-intensity running (LIR: +18%, p = 0.011), standing/transient motion (+35%, p = 0.004), walking (+17%, p = 0.022), distance covered while walking (+14%, p = 0.036), and at low intensity (+11%, p = 0.048) were observed. Performance comparisons between the first and second half within games revealed a significant decrease (p ≤ 0.05) in high-speed and high-intensity runs during the second half of the postseason compared with the regular season. Changes in minutes played correlated significantly with changes in absolute time spent engaged in LIR (r = 0.999, p < 0.001), standing/transient motion (r = 0.791, p = 0.011), walking (r = 0.975, p = 0.001), jogging (r = 0.733, p = 0.025), distance covered while walking (r = 0.898, p < 0.001) and low-intensity activity (r = 0.945, p < 0.001). Negative correlations were observed between minutes played and absolute time sprinting (r = -0.698, p = 0.037) and distance covered sprinting (r = -0.689, p = 0.040). Results indicate that additional minutes played during the postseason were primarily performed at lower intensity thresholds, suggesting running performance during postseason competitions may be compromised with greater playing time in intercollegiate women's soccer.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".