A biomechanical comparison of the vertical jump, power clean, and jump squat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the kinetics, kinematics, and muscle activation patterns of the countermovement jump, the power clean, and the jump squat with the expectation of gaining a better understanding of the mechanism of transfer from the power clean to the vertical jump. Ground reaction forces, electromyography, and joint angle data were collected from 20 trained participants while they performed the three movements. Relative to the power clean, the kinematics of the jump squat were more similar to those of the countermovement jump. The order in which the ankle, knee, and hip began extending, as well as the subsequent pattern of extension, was different between the power clean and countermovement jump. The electromyography data demonstrated significant differences in the relative timing of peak activations in all muscles, the maximum activation of the rectus femoris and biceps femoris, and in the activation/deactivation patterns of the vastus medialis and rectus femoris. The greatest rate of force development during the upward phase of these exercises was generated during the power clean (17,254 [Formula: see text]), which was significantly greater than both the countermovement jump (3836 [Formula: see text]) and jump squat (3517 [Formula: see text]) conditions (P < .001, [Formula: see text]).
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".