Estimated times to exhaustion and power outputs at the gas exchange threshold, physical working capacity at the rating of perceived exertion threshold, and respiratory compensation point
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were to compare the power outputs and estimated times to exhaustion (T(lim)) at the gas exchange threshold (GET), physical working capacity at the rating of perceived exertion threshold (PWC(RPE)), and respiratory compensation point (RCP). Three male and 5 female subjects (mean ± SD: age, 22.4 ± 2.8 years) performed an incremental test to exhaustion on an electronically braked cycle ergometer to determine peak oxygen consumption rate, GET, and RCP. The PWC(RPE) was determined from ratings of perceived exertion data recorded during 3 continuous workbouts to exhaustion. The estimated T(lim) values for each subject at GET, PWC(RPE), and RCP were determined from power curve analyses (T(lim) = ax(b)). The results indicated that the PWC(RPE) (176 ± 55 W) was not significantly different from RCP (181 ± 54 W); however, GET (155 ± 42 W) was significantly less than PWC(RPE) and RCP. The estimated T(lim) for the GET (26.1 ± 9.8 min) was significantly greater than PWC(RPE) (14.6 ± 5.6 min) and RCP (11.2 ± 3.1 min). The PWC(RPE) occurred at a mean power output that was 13.5% greater than the GET and, therefore, it is likely that the perception of effort is not driven by the same mechanism that underlies the GET (i.e., lactate buffering). Furthermore, the PWC(RPE) and RCP were not significantly different and, therefore, these thresholds may be associated with the same mechanisms of fatigue, such as increased levels of interstitial and (or) arterial [K⁺].
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".