MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238155542 · doi:10.1123/jab.28.6.627

Potentiation of Vertical Jump Performance During a Snatch Pull Exercise Session

2012· article· en· W2238155542 on OpenAlexaff
Loren Z.F. Chiu, George J. Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Biomechanics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJumpingJumpVertical jumpAnklePhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineWork (physics)Physical therapyMathematicsAnatomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potentiation has been reported in power tasks immediately following a strength stimulus; however, only whole-body performance has been assessed. To determine the acute effects of weightlifting on vertical jump joint kinetics, performance was assessed before, during, and after snatch pull exercise in male athletes. Jumping was assessed using 3D motion analysis and inverse dynamics. Jump height was enhanced at the midpoint (5.77%; p = .001) and end (5.90%; p < .001) of the exercise session, indicating a greater power-generating ability. At the midpoint, knee extensor net joint work was increased (p = .05) and associated with increased jump height (r = .57; p = .02). Following exercise, ankle plantar flexor net joint work was increased (p = .02) and associated with increased jump height (r = .67; p = .006). Snatch pull exercise elicited acute enhancements in vertical jump performance. At the midpoint of the exercise session, greater work at the knee joint contributed to enhanced performance. At the end of the exercise session, greater work at the ankle contributed to enhanced performance. Consequently, potentiation is not elicited uniformly across joints during multijoint exercise.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied BiomechanicsSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207