An Evidence-Based Model of Power Development in Youth Soccer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Power is thought as an essential physical characteristic in soccer, but no systematic and evidence-based model exists to develop this attribute in youth. Both the player's pathway and natural power development were discussed and integrated as conditioning factors to the model, where the player's pathway influenced training integration, block duration, and session length and frequency, while the natural power development dictated training emphasis, mode, intensity and volume. Furthermore, a systematic analysis of training studies that investigated the training of power in youth soccer players was conducted to determine current best practice and limitations. An initial phase concentrating on movement competency and velocity was recommended prior to puberty, before an emphasis on force production during mid-puberty (13–15 y). Once the players enter late puberty (>16 y), maximal strength and power training should be implemented. The number of power training sessions in a block, exercise progression and loading parameters should be viewed as key factors of the training design to enhance movement competency and optimise training adaptations. The implementation of a model will ensure optimal integration of power training and its constituent parts (force and velocity) with clear training emphases throughout the developmental stages of a player.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".