Diferencias en la capacidad de aceleración, cambio de dirección y resistencia cardiovascular entre jugadores de fútbol amateur de distinta categoría competitiva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objectives of this research were, first, to assess and quantify straight-line sprint performance, change of direction ability (CODA) and cardiovascular capacity in amateur soccer players, and on the other hand, to analyze the differences in these capacities of amateur soccer players competing at different categories (TD, Third Division vs. RP, Regional Preferential). This study involved thirty-six amateur soccer players (20,10 ± 1,47 years, 75,67 ± 8,38 kg, 1,80 ± 0,07 m, 23,41 ± 1,74 kg/m2) playing in two different teams from the same club competing at the categories TD and RP. No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between groups TD and RP to the straight-line acceleration capacity test (SP20m and SP30m), the CODA (505 agility Test) and endurance test (UMT, Montreal University). However, to practical purposes (TE, effect size = 0.67, moderate), group TD obtained better results than RP on the 505 agility Test. Absence of significant differences between both groups may reveal that physical condition is not the most relevant aspect when deciding on the promotion to third division.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".