Dynamique des réponses aérobies lors d’un 100 m nage libre, réalisé dans des conditions de compétition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of this study is to estimate the dynamics of oxygen uptake (VO2) during a 100 m front crawl event, performed in competition conditions. Eleven trained swimmers participated in 2 separate sessions, in a 25 m swimming pool. Maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was determined during a 400 m maximal event. Swimmers also performed a 100 m front crawl in competition conditions, and then, 3 tests (25, 50, and 75 m) following the pacing strategy of the 100 m event. To be free of technical constraints, VO2 was not measured during the tests, but before and just at the end of each test with a 1 min breath-by-breath method. Each post-test VO2 measurement (after 25, 50, 75, and 100 m) allows us to reconstruct the VO2 kinetics of the 100 m performance. Our results differ from previous studies in that VO2 increases faster in the first half of the race (at 50 m, VO2 ≈ 94% VO2max), reaches VO2max at the 75 m mark; then a decrease in VO2 corresponding to 7% of VO2max appears during the last 25 m. These differences are supposed to be mainly the consequences of the adoption of technical elements and a pacing strategy similar to competition conditions. In the future, these observations may lead to different considerations of the bioenergetic contributions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".