Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This critical review reflects the current state of cadence research during cyclical activities at different intensities. Moreover, this review aims at making suggestions in the areas of evaluation, therapy and sporting performance in the light of all the different results reported in studies. A large number of researchers have tried to determine the 'optimal' cadence from imposed, preferred or spontaneously chosen cadences in order to improve efficiency and performances. Results are sometimes conflicting and difficult to explain or interpret. The authors have studied the variations in cadences using a reduced number of parameters, without links between energetic (oxygen consumption, ventilation), biomechanical (force, electromyography) and/or perceived parameters (rating of perceived exertion). Conclusions point out that the 'optimal' cadence cannot be unique and must be associated with the objectives and individual characteristics of the subject (skills and training level, anthropometric parameters). In the area of training and reconditioning, cadences would have to be set in relation to the nature of cyclical activities and the subjects' condition.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it