Interrelationships among Jumping Power, Sprinting Power and Pubertal Status after Controlling for Size in Young Male Soccer Players
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
This study examined power output on jumping and sprinting tests in young soccer players of differing pubertal status, while controlling for body size with allometric scaling exponents. A total of 46 males aged 12-18 years (14.17 years) were divided into three groups: pre-pubescent ( n = 12), pubescent ( n = 22), and post-pubescent ( n = 12). Participants performed a series of tests, including the squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), and 10-meter and 30-meter sprint test protocols. The Post-PUB group was older ( F = 112.411, p < 0.001), more experienced in competitive soccer ( F = 8.055, p = 0.001), taller ( F = 28.940, p < 0.001), and heavier ( F = 20.618, p < 0.001), when compared to peers in the other groups. Mean differences in jumping and sprinting performances suggested a significant effect for pubertal status on performance in the 10-meter sprint (large effect size, F = 8.191, p < 0.001) and 30-meter sprint (large effect size, F = 8.093, p < 0.001) after allometric scaling. Power output derived from SJ (small effect size, F = 0.536, p = 0.001) and CMJ (small effect size, F = 1.058, p = 0.356) showed no significant differences across players of varying pubertal status. Biological maturation showed a large effect on maximal power output for sprints, but not for jumps, when the effect of body size was adjusted by statistically derived allometric exponents in young male soccer players.
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