MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2623397268 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.00433

Running Economy from a Muscle Energetics Perspective

2017· review· en· W2623397268 on OpenAlexafffund
Jared R. Fletcher, Brian R. MacIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsRunning economyEnergeticsSkeletal muscleEnergy costMuscle contractionContext (archaeology)Metabolic costComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationVO2 maxAnatomyEconomicsBiologyMedicineEcologyEnvironmental economicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The economy of running has traditionally been quantified from the mass-specific oxygen uptake; however, because fuel substrate usage varies with exercise intensity, it is more accurate to express running economy in units of metabolic energy. Fundamentally, the understanding of the major factors that influence the energy cost of running (Erun) can be obtained with this approach. Erun is determined by the energy needed for skeletal muscle contraction. Here, we approach the study of Erun from that perspective. The amount of energy needed for skeletal muscle contraction is dependent on the force, duration, shortening, shortening velocity and length of the muscle. These factors therefore dictate the energy cost of running. It is understood that some determinants of the energy cost of running are not trainable: environmental factors, surface characteristics and certain anthropometric features. Other factors affecting Erun are altered by training: other anthropometric features, muscle and tendon properties and running mechanics. Here, the key features that dictate the energy cost during distance running are reviewed in the context of skeletal muscle energetics.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations148
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207