MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792613977 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000002474

Monitoring the Prescribed and Experienced Heart Rate–Derived Training Loads in Elite Field Hockey Players

2018· article· en· W2792613977 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew S. Perrotta, Jack Taunton, Michael S. Koehle, Matthew D. White, Darren E. R. Warburton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField hockeyPhysical therapyMedicineConfidence intervalLeagueTraining (meteorology)Heart rateStrength trainingSignificant differenceMathematicsStatisticsPsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perrotta, AS, Taunton, JE, Koehle, MS, White, MD, and Warburton, DER. Monitoring the prescribed and experienced heart rate-derived training loads in elite field hockey players. J Strength Cond Res 33(5): 1394-1399, 2019-This study examined the congruence between the prescribed and experienced heart rate-derived training loads over a 5-week periodized mesocycle. Twenty-four elite female field hockey players training as part of a national team were monitored before an (FIH) Hockey World League tournament. Three on-field training sessions per week were prospectively designed focusing on technical, tactical, and physiologically oriented hockey drills. A training load value, modeling the periodized weekly loading scheme, was prescribed for each training session and was calculated using normative training load responses from performing on-field hockey drills. Magnitude-based inferences focusing on the effect size (ES) and a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) were used to examine the degree of difference and the strength of correlation between the prescribed and experienced training loads. A significant correlation was observed between the experienced and prescribed training loads over the 5-week mesocycle (r = 0.92, 90% confidence limit [CL] [0.84-0.96]). The percentage difference and the ES between the achieved and prescribed training loads were as follows: week 1 demonstrated a 2.0% difference (ES = 0.10, 90% CL [-0.22-0.41]), week 2 a -5.4% difference (ES = -0.41, 90% CL [-0.75 to -0.07]), week 3 a -1.5% difference (ES = -0.09, 90% CL [-0.37 to 0.20]), week 4 a 7.1% difference (ES = 0.46, 90% CL [0.14-0.78]), and week 5 a 3.5% difference (ES = 0.18, 90% CL [-0.17 to 0.53]). This investigation demonstrates the efficacy for coaches to prospectively design on-field training sessions using normative training load data to enhance the congruence between the prescribed and experienced training loads over a periodized mesocycle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207