Incremental Testing Design on Slide Board for Speed Skaters: Comparison Between Two Different Protocols
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piucco, T, O'Connell, J, Stefanyshyn, D, and de Lucas, RD. Incremental testing design on slide board for speed skaters: comparison between two different protocols. J Strength Cond Res 30(11): 3116-3121, 2016-The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of stage duration (Long-stage-LS: 3-minute, Short-stage-SS: 1-minute) on maximal and submaximal aerobic physiological variables during a simulated skating test performed on a slide board. Ten well-trained male speed skaters performed 2 maximal incremental tests on slide board until voluntary exhaustion. The second ventilatory threshold (VT2) was determined by the ventilatory equivalent method. All participants reached the criteria for maximal oxygen uptake (V[Combining Dot Above]O2max) attainment in both protocols. Maximal cadence (CADmax), V[Combining Dot Above]O2 at VT2 and cadence at VT2 (CADVT2) were significantly higher during SS protocol, but maximal heart rate was significantly lower for the SS protocol. V[Combining Dot Above]O2max was significantly correlated with CADmax for the SS (r = 0.62) and LS protocols (r = 0.61). Strong correlations were found between CADmax and CADVT2 during the SS (r = 0.83) and LS protocols (r = 0.76). The results of the present study suggest that either SS or LS slide board incremental protocol can be used to evaluate skaters, since they elicited maximal physiological responses. Additionally, slide board incremental skating tests may be considered as a more specific and practical alternative than laboratory-based tests, especially when a large number of athletes need to be assessed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".