Physical demand of wheelchair tennis match-play on hard courts and clay courts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to define the performance model of wheelchair tennis, by means of 20 Hz GPS together with heart rate monitors, while also investigating potential surface-related differences. Hence, 12 matches performed by 12 nationally ranked wheelchair tennis players were examined. Each athlete played one match on the clay and one on the hard court according to a counterbalanced design, and the data regarding the parameters of maximum heart rate (HRmax), average heart rate (HRav), maximum speed (SPmax), average speed (SPav), maximum acceleration (ACCmax), maximum deceleration (DECmax), maximum metabolic power (MPmax), average metabolic power (MPav) and energy expenditure (EE) were analysed. The average match duration was 82 ± 16 min on clay courts (C) and 68 ± 17 min on hard courts (H) (p = .06), while the distance covered is greater, but not significant, on clay courts (C > H, +10%). The t-test did not highlight significant differences pertaining to the playing surface. The linear regression showed significant values concerning the distance covered (C: p < .0001, r2 = .82, H: r2 = .81) and the energy expenditure (C: p < .05, r2 = .5, H: r2 = .9). The playing surface does not affect the performance of competitive wheelchair tennis athletes.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".