MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775558148 · doi:10.5817/sts2013-1-5

Úroveň aerobní kapacity elitního dorosteneckého týmu a profesionálního seniorského týmu na začátku přípravného období ve fotbale

2013· article· en· W2775558148 on OpenAlexaff
Jaroslav Teplan, Tomáš Malý, František Zahálka, Lucía Malá, Aleš Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueStudia sportiva · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute of Natural and Integrative Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody weightAnimal scienceSignificant differencePsychologyMathematicsMedicinePhysical therapyDemographyStatisticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine and compare the state of aerobic capacity of a men's professional soccer team against the oldest junior elite team at the beginning of practice period. The group of the adult players consisted of 17 players (age: 23,5 ± 3,2 years, body weight: 76,5 ± 4,2 kg, height: 183,3 ± 3,2 cm, BMI: 22.8 ± 0.7 kg.m-2) the Under 19 group consisted of 14 players (age: 18.3 ± 0.2 years, body weight: 74.9 ± 6.5 kg, height: 181.5 ± 6.3 cm and BMI: 22.8 ± 0.7 kg.m-2). Monitoring and evaluation of aerobic parameters used the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery test 1 (Yo-Yo IRT1). The difference between the groups was statistically significant when comparing averages of the results based on the overall distance run and parameter VO2max. Differences in parameters HRmax and decrease of HR in a 1 minute were not statistically significant. A transition from a junior category to an adult one puts significant demands on the speed within the game and performance of individual in-game activities. All the surveyed parameters are only a necessary prerequisites for top performance in a match.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudia sportivaSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207