MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2359690369

Analysis on the Partial Indexes of the Physical Fitness of the Male Elite Wrestlers

2011· article· en· W2359690369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
YA Li-kun

Bibliographic record

VenueBeijing Tiyu Daxue xuebao · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaEliteMathematicsElite athletesAthletesStatisticsSignificant differenceFlexibility (engineering)PsychologyPhysical therapyAnimal scienceMedicinePolitical scienceBiologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to find out the difference on the partial indexes of physical fitness of elite male wrestlers between China and abroad,the paper used the documentation and mathematical statistics methods to study on 53 male wrestlers,and compared some of the relevant data from abroad.The result indicated that the strength endurance of Chinese lightweight wrestlers is dominant significantly than abroad,but the Chinese heavyweight wrestlers need to be improved,and the maximal strength of lower limbs need strengthening;The average VO2max of Chinese athletes is 52.23±2.85 mL/kg/min,a little better then Iran's 49.95±3.20 mL/kg/min.But compared with Canadian's average 61.8 mL/kg/min and Korea's 60.2 mL/kg/min,they have a big gap.The average level of the flexibility index is 41.79±3.42 cm,a little better than Iran's 41.03±5.04 cm,but in the 50kg and 84kg category they are weaker than the Iranians.For the speed quality,there is no difference between China's(5.15±0.24)s and Iran's(5.17±0.12)s,only below the 84 kg category Chinese wrestlers' have advantages,but above 84 kg,especially the 120 kg category,they need to be improved urgently.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeijing Tiyu Daxue xuebaoSame topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207