MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112825522 · doi:10.5072/prism/26883

Metabolically Optimal Gait Transitions in Cross-Country Skate Skiing

2014· article· en· W2112825522 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anthony Killick, Walter Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of undergraduate research in Alberta · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkateKinematicsGaitTreadmillSTRIDEPreferred walking speedMetabolic costMathematicsSimulationComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiologyEcologyMedicinePhysicsPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With increasing speeds of locomotion, animals change their gait pattern to minimize metabolic cost. For ex- ample, a horse will walk at low speeds, trot at intermediate speeds and gallop at high speeds [1]. Likewise, cross-country skiers use the 2-skate technique at slow speeds, switch to the 1-skate technique at intermediate speeds, but then, in contrast to everything known about locomotion in humans and animals, they revert back to the previously rejected 2-skate technique at very high speeds of locomotion. This pattern of gait transitions suggests that the metabolic efficiency curves for 1-skate and 2-skate skiing intersect twice, rather than just once as they do for human walking and running. The purpose of this study was to test if the metabolic efficiency curves of 1-skate and 2-skate skiing intersect twice, and if so, find an explanation for this surprising result. Eight nationally competitive skiers were tested on a roller ski treadmill. Subjects were asked to ski at speeds of 6-33km/h at 3km/h increments, once with the 1-skate technique and once with the 2-skate technique. Oxygen consumption and 3d kinematics were recorded continuously. We found that the metabolic efficiency curves intersected twice. We also found that pole contact time and distance was much shorter per stride when using the 1-skate technique, especially at very low and very high speeds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.346 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of undergraduate research in AlbertaSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207