Time Spent at V˙O<sub>2</sub>max: a Methodological Issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to propose a standardised procedure to determine the time spent at VO2max (tVO2max) based on the VO2max of the day (i. e. the VO2max value measured the day of the test). Ten male subjects first performed a graded field test, followed by a continuous running exercise to exhaustion, at the velocity of the Université de Montréal Track Test (V(UMTT)) plus 1 km x h(-1) (V(UMTT)(+1)). The second test consisted of an exhaustive run at 100 % of V(UMTT), followed by a V(UMTT)(+1) test. Different methods were used to compare time spent at VO2max, based on the VO2max of the graded field test, and time spent at VO2max, based on the VO2max of the day, during an exhaustive run at 100 % of V(UMTT). Results have shown that V(UMTT)(+1) tests were of sufficient intensity and duration to identify the VO2max of the day. Time spent at VO2max ranged from 25 +/- 53 s to 139 +/- 76 s according to the method used. However, the tVO2max method based on the sum of each value higher than 95 % of VO2max of the day appeared more robust than methods based on the time to exhaustion minus time to reach VO2 reference value, or the method based on the sum of values higher than VO2max minus 2.1 ml x kg(-1) x min(-1).
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 | 0.045 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".