Jumping Abilities and Swimming Grab-Start Performances in Elite and Recreational Swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationships between the performances of a swimming grab start and each of countermovement jump for distance, countermovement jump for height, squat jump for distance and squat jump for height. Nine elite and 7 recreational female swimmers performed 6 trials in each of the 4 jumping techniques, and six 25-m freestyle sprints following a grab start. Elite subjects performed significantly better in the start performances, and this was attributed to the greater horizontal impulse. Correlations in the elite group revealed that grab-start performance was not related to performances of any jumps. This suggests that the grab start is independent of the jumping techniques for this group, and performance of one skill may not translate to performance in the other. Significant correlations were found between performances of the grab start and the f4 jumps in the recreational group, possibly because of adoption of an “incorrect” motor pattern that may be similar to those of the jumps. This study highlighted the importance of practicing the start as a whole skill during training.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".