Allometric scaling of power-force-velocity ergometry profiles in men
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
AIM: To examine the appropriate magnitude of allometric scaling of the force-velocity relationship according to body dimensions and to establish normative data for the power-force-velocity relationship for active men. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven participants completed a force-velocity test on a Monark cycle ergometer. Allometric exponents and percentile ranks were established for maximal power (Pmax), maximal force (F0) and maximal velocity (V0). RESULTS: The mean (± SD) of Pmax, F0 and V0 were 1114.90 ± 160.60 W, 191.97 ± 26.51 N, and 227.87 ± 8.82 rpm, respectively. V0 was not related to any body size descriptors. Allometric exponents for Pmax, and F0 scaled for body mass were b = 0.77 (0.64-0.90) and 0.74 (0.61-0.86), respectively. Correlations between allometrically scaled Pmax and F0 with body mass were r = 0.002 (p = 0.984) and r = 0.008 (p = 0.940), respectively, suggesting that the allometric exponents derived were effective in partialling out the effect of body mass on Pmax and F0 results. CONCLUSIONS: The allometric exponents and normative values of the current study provide a useful tool for comparing the scores of force-velocity tests between individuals without the confounding effect of body size.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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