Repeated Linear and Quadrangular Sprint as a Function of Anaerobic Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almansba, R, Boucher, VG, Parent, AA, and Comtois, AS. Repeated linear and quadrangular sprint as a function of anaerobic power. J Strength Cond Res 33(8): 2177-2184, 2019-This investigation aims to study in U17 soccer players the relationships among performance indices of linear or quadrangular (square shape) repeated-sprint bouts (RSBs) and leg muscular power measured with the Wingate test and the squat jump. Seventeen athletes were recruited. Participants were 16 ± 0.35 years old and had a body mass of 66.5 ± 8.69 kg and a height of 175 ± 0.05 cm. All participants performed linear or quadrangular RSBs, the Wingate test, and a vertical jump test. The mean fast linear sprint time was strongly correlated (p < 0.01) with the force and power measured with the vertical jump test (r = -0.68 and -0.75, respectively), whereas the mean linear RSB was weakly correlated with the peak power and fatigue index measured by the Wingate test (r = -0.54 and -0.56, respectively). There was a correlation between quadrangular RSBs performance indices and both Wingate and vertical jump parameters. In addition, there were no correlations (p > 0.05) between indices of the linear RSBs (decrement index, average, and fastest times) and quadrangular RSBs. Moreover, physiological and perceptual responses were significantly higher (p < 0.01) with quadrangular RSBs compared with linear RSBs. These results indicate that the Wingate test and the vertical jump test can be used as a substitute for repeated-sprint performance time. Finally, however, the repeated sprints with or without direction changes are 2 different motor abilities that should be trained independently of one another.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".