Well-Trained Endurance Athletes’ Knowledge, Insight, and Experience of Caffeine Use
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
This descriptive cross-sectional study assessed the perceptions, knowledge, and experiences of caffeine use by athletes competing at the 2005 Ironman Triathlon World Championships. Questionnaires were distributed to 140 athletes (105 men and 35 women, 40.3 +/- 10.7 y old) representing 16 countries during prerace registration. A large proportion (73%) of these endurance athletes believe that caffeine is ergogenic to their endurance performance, and 84% believe it improves their concentration. The most commonly reported positive caffeine experiences related to in-competition use of cola drinks (65%) and caffeinated gels (24%). The athletes' ability to accurately quantify the caffeine content of common food items was limited. The most popular sources of caffeine information were self-experimentation (16%), fellow athletes (15%), magazines (13%), and journal articles (12%). Over half the athletes (53%) could not identify an amount of caffeine required to improve their triathlon performance. Mean (+/- standard deviation) suggested doses were 3.8 (+/- 3) mg/kg body weight. Few side effects associated with taking caffeine during exercise were reported.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it