Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent review by Cairns and colleagues published in Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews (2005:33[1]:9-16)1 described experimental models used to study neuromuscular fatigue and explained the inherent strengths and weaknesses of applied versus reductionist approaches. This technical report addresses some of the recommendations made in that review, from the perspective of the applied sport scientist or practitioner in evaluating fatigue in elite athletes. The goal here is to highlight the inherent difficulties in assessing fatigue in the applied sport setting and to provide practitioners with future directions for fatigue research. A particular type of fatigue, called low-frequency fatigue (LFF), is of particular interest to the applied sport scientist or practitioner and could be the focus of future work. This report identifies some of the technical challenges faced in developing a practical test of LFF for use in the field setting. The outcome of further work in this area will lead to a better understanding of athlete monitoring, training, and performance.
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.
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 it