Scapular kinematics during scaption in competitive swimmers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed (1) to describe and compare scapular kinematics between three groups of swimmers of different levels and a group of non-swimmers, and (2) to assess whether swimming practice alters the asymmetries in scapular kinematics between the dominant and non-dominant sides, both during unilateral arm raising and lowering in the scapular plane. Scapular kinematics were assessed bilaterally during arm raising and lowering in the scapular plane using an electromagnetic system in 42 healthy males, which were split into four groups: control (n = 11), adolescent elite swimmers (n = 11), adult elite swimmers (n = 10), and club-level adult swimmers (n = 10). One-Way ANOVA SPM(t) on two repeated measures showed that the three groups of swimmers had more protracted shoulder between 30° and 90° of arm raising and lowering (p < .001). The three groups of swimmers presented no bilateral difference in scapular upward rotation, while the dominant scapula was more upwardly rotated than the non-dominant one between 74° and 104° of arm elevation in the control group (p < .001). The scapula of adult elite swimmers was more internally rotated between 67° and 116° of humeral elevation during arm raising, and between 81° and 54° during arm lowering in comparison to the other swimming and control groups (p ≤ .02), who presented similar scapular positioning in internal rotation. In conclusion, the findings of the study pointed out that swimming practice generated protracted shoulders and removed bilateral differences in scapular upward rotation during scaption, while accumulation of swimming practice at elite level enlarged scapular internal rotation.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".