The effect of a competitive season and environmental factors on pulmonary function and aerobic power in varsity hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the effect of a competitive season and environmental factors on pulmonary function and aerobic power in varsity hockey players. Fourteen male subjects completed testing before and after a 7-month varsity hockey season within ice arena conditions. All subjects completed an aerobic power (.)VO(2) (max) test on a cycle ergometer. Pulmonary function tests were performed at rest and 1, 10, 15, and 25 min after the (.)VO(2) (max) test. The arena environment was monitored during testing and throughout the season for temperature, relative humidity, gaseous chemicals, moulds, and fungi. There was no change in (.)VO(2) (max) during the season. The percent change in forced expiratory flow in 1 s (FEV1) post-exercise compared to resting FEV1 and forced vital capacity (FVC) after the (.)VO(2) (max) test were significantly lower after the season. The arena temperature and relative humidity ranged between 13 and 16 degrees C and between 30% and 45% over the course of the season. Sulfur dioxide (0.7-4.5 ppm) was found in the arena and no airborne moulds unique to the dressing room environment were found to exceed Health Canada's guideline of 50 CFU/m(3) for indoor air quality. It was concluded that some hockey players experience limitations to pulmonary function over the course of a competitive season.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".