A Time–Motion Analysis of Elite Solo Synchronized Swimming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the total amount and relative time periods of face immersion (FI) in a synchronized swimming solo routine and the relationship between FI, distance covered, and the technical-merit score of the 11 top Canadian soloists at a synchronized swimming national championship (mean age 20 +/- 1.8 y, height 173.3 +/- 4.1 cm, and body mass 58.3 +/- 4 kg). METHODS: Videotape and timing of solo performances combined with manual tracking of pool patterns. RESULTS: Analysis of performance revealed that an average of 18 FI periods, mean of 6.8 s, were performed for an average total time of 133.7 +/- 27.1 s (range 102.2 to 199.8 s). The average longest FI time period was 25.45 +/- 6.2 s (range 18.18 to 38.72 s), and most (10/11) of these were in the first third of the solo. The mean total horizontal distance covered was 57.61 +/- 6.84 m (range 48.61 to 68.2 m), and the total horizontal distance covered relative to time was 0.276 +/- 0.034 m/s (range 0.235 to 0.340 m/s). No significant relationships were found between any of the FI periods and the distance covered or between the technical-merit score and FI periods. Each solo contained 6 to 8 underwater sequences, none of which were longer than 40 seconds, the cutoff deemed dangerous by FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation). CONCLUSION: This study shows that the times underwater for solos in Canada are within safety limits recommended by FINA and that judging in Canada is not related to underwater periods of swimming.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".