Is There an Optimal Pole Length for Double Poling in Cross Country Skiing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the effects of pole length on energy cost and kinematics in cross country double poling. Seven sub-elite male athletes were tested using pole sets of different lengths (ranging between 77% and 98% of participants' body height). Tests were conducted on a treadmill, set to a 2% incline and an approximate racing speed. Poling forces, contact times, and oxygen uptake were measured throughout the testing. Pole length was positively correlated with ground contact time (r = .57, p < .001) and negatively correlated with poling frequency (r = -.48, p = .003). Pole length was also positively correlated with pole recovery time and propulsive impulse produced per poling cycle (r = .36, p = .031; r = .35, p = .042, respectively). Oxygen uptake and pole length were negatively correlated (r = -.51, p = .004). This acute study shows that increasing pole length for double poling in sub-elite cross country skiers under the given conditions seems to change the poling mechanics in distinct ways, resulting in a more efficient poling action by decreasing an athlete's metabolic cost.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".