Contextual factors on physical demands in professional women's soccer: Female Athletes in Motion study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine the impact of contextual factors on relative locomotor and metabolic power distances during professional female soccer matches. Twenty‐eight players (forwards, n = 4; midfielders, n = 12; defenders, n = 12) that competed in a 90‐min home and away match (regular season only). The generalised estimating equations (GEE) was used to evaluate relative locomotor and metabolic power distances for three contextual factors: location (home vs. away), type of turf (natural vs. artificial), and match outcome (win, loss and draw). No differences were observed for home vs. away matches. Moderate‐intensity running (20.0 ± 1.0 m min −1 and 16.4 ± 0.9 m min −1 ), high‐intensity running (8.6 ± 0.4 m min −1 and 7.3 ± 0.4 m min −1 ) and high‐metabolic power (16.3 ± 0.5 m min −1 and 14.4 ± 0.5 m min −1 ) distances were elevated on artificial turf compared to natural grass, respectively. Relative sprint distance was greater during losses compared with draws (4.3 ± 0.4 m min −1 and 3.4 ± 0.3 m min −1 ). Overall physical demands of professional women's soccer were not impacted by match location. However, the elevation of moderate and high‐intensity demands while playing on artificial turf may have implications on match preparations as well as recovery strategies.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it