The reliability of isoinertial force–velocity–power profiling and maximal strength assessment in youth
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
The purpose of this study was to quantify the inter-session reliability of force-velocity-power profiling and estimated maximal strength in youth. Thirty-six males (11-15 years old) performed a ballistic supine leg press test at five randomized loads (80%, 100%, 120%, 140%, and 160% body mass) on three separate occasions. Peak and mean force, power, velocity, and peak displacement were collected with a linear position transducer attached to the weight stack. Mean values at each load were used to calculate different regression lines and estimate maximal strength, force, velocity, and power. All variables were found reliable (change in the mean [CIM] = - 1 to 14%; coefficient of variation [CV] = 3-18%; intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.74-0.99), but were likely to benefit from a familiarization, apart from the unreliable maximal force/velocity ratio (CIM = 0-3%; CV = 23-25%; ICC = 0.35-0.54) and load at maximal power (CIM = - 1 to 2%; CV = 10-13%; ICC = 0.26-0.61). Isoinertial force-velocity-power profiling and maximal strength in youth can be assessed after a familiarization session. Such profiling may provide valuable insight into neuromuscular capabilities during growth and maturation and may be used to monitor specific training adaptations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 it