Running Demands and Activity Profile of the New Four-Quarter Match Format in Men's Field Hockey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Ihsan, M, Yeo, V, Tan, F, Joseph, R, Lee, M, and Aziz, AR. Running demands and activity profile of the new four-quarter match format in men's field hockey. J Strength Cond Res 35(2): 512-518, 2021-This study determined the running demands of men's field hockey with regards to the revised four-quarter match format. Twenty-eight male field hockey players were equipped with global positioning system units while competing in 14 competitive international games over a 1-year period. All matches allowed for unlimited substitutions, and consisted of four 15-minute quarters (i.e., Q1-Q4). A progressive decline in total distance (TD) was observed in Q2 (2,072 ± 141 m) to Q4 (2,055 ± 212 m) compared with Q1 (2,171 ± 195 m, p < 0.05). However, the decline in TD was due to decreases in low-intensity activity (<15 km·h-1, p < 0.05), as high-intensity running (HIR; >15 km·h-1) distances were similar throughout Q1-Q4 (p = 0.263). Positional data demonstrated a similar profile, where significant decreases in TD, but not in HIR, was observed across all playing positions at some point over the 4 quarters (p < 0.05). DEF accumulated the lowest amount of TD (7,631 ± 753 m), HIR (2,257 ± 498 m), and high-intensity decelerations (60 ± 9, >-2m·s-2) compared with MID and FWD (p < 0.05). By contrast, FWD performed the highest amount of HIR (3,090 ± 565 m) and high-intensity accelerations (110 ± 9, >2 m·s-2) compared with MID and DEF (p < 0.05). In conclusion, our results showed that although there was a progressive decline in TD over the 4 quarters of match play, high-intensity running performance (i.e., HIR and high-intensity acceleration) was maintained throughout the match regardless of playing position.
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".