Accuracy of estimates of cumulative load during a confined activity: bicycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cumulative load reflects the total accumulated load across a loading exposure. Estimated cumulative load can identify individuals with or at risk for pathology. However, there is no research into the accuracy of the estimated cumulative load. This study determined: (1) which impulses, from a 500 revolution bicycling activity, accurately estimate cumulative pedal reaction force; and (2) how many impulses are required to accurately estimate cumulative pedal reaction force over 500 revolutions. Twenty-four healthy adults (mean 23.4 [SD 3.1] years; 11 men) participated. Participants performed three bicycling bouts of 10-min in duration and were randomized to one of two groups (group 1 = self-selected power and prescribed cadence of 80 revolutions per minute; group 2 = prescribed power of 100 W and self-selected cadence). The first 10 revolutions (2%) of the normal pedal reaction force (PRFN) and resultant pedal reaction force (PRFR), and the first five revolutions (1%) of the anterior-posterior reaction force (PRFAP) over-estimated cumulative load. The PRFN, PRFAP, and PRFR required 80 revolutions (16%), 320 revolutions (64%) and 65 revolutions (13%), respectively, to accurately estimate cumulative load across 500 cycles. These findings highlight that the context and amount of data collected are important in producing accurate estimates of cumulative load.
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 | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".