Úroveň aerobní kapacity elitního dorosteneckého týmu a profesionálního seniorského týmu na začátku přípravného období ve fotbale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".