MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127399781 · doi:10.1139/h00-019

Physiological Responses to Cycling for 60 Minutes at Maximal Lactate Steady State

2000· article· en· W2127399781 on OpenAlexaff
Claude Lajoie, Louis Laurencelle, François Trudeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood lactateHeart rateCyclingRespiratory exchange ratioSteady state (chemistry)Anaerobic exerciseAnimal scienceVentilation (architecture)Respiratory minute volumeExertionChemistryMedicineCardiologyInternal medicinePhysical therapyRespiratory systemBlood pressureBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in physiological variables during a 60-min continuous test at maximal lactate steady state (MLSS) were studied using highly conditioned cyclists (1 female and 9 males, aged 28.3 +/- 8.1 years). To determine power at MLSS, we tested at 8-min increments and interpolated the power corresponding to a blood lactate value of 4 mmol/L. During the subsequent 60-min exercise at MLSS, we observed a sequential increase of physiological parameters, in contrast to stable blood lactate. Heart rate drifted upward from beginning to end of exercise. This became statistically significant after 30 min. From 10-60 min of exercise, a change of +12.6 +/- 3.2 bpm was noted. Significant drift was seen after 30 min for the respiratory exchange ratio, after 40 min for the rate of perceived exertion using the Borg scale, and after 50 min for % VO(2)max/kg and minute ventilation. This slow component of VO(2)max may be the result of higher recruitment of type II fibers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207