Oxygen uptake in One and Two Skate Cross Country Skiing At Increasing Grades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Skate skiing is a unique form of quadrupedal locomotion utilizing a sliding pair ofskis and a fixed pair of poles. Skiers tend to use the two-skate technique at slow speeds,the one-skate at intermediate speeds and then, surprisingly select the two-skate againat very high speeds. In a previous study on a flat terrain, we have shown that thisstrange behavior seems to minimize oxygen consumption since the two-skate techniquehad a lower oxygen consumption at both low and high speeds than the one skatetechnique. In the two-skate, poles are planted with every second skate stride whilein one-skate, poles are planted simultaneously with every skate stride (Smith, 2000).However, skiers are not limited to flat terrain; therefore, in this study we measuredthe oxygen consumption of the one- and two-skate techniques at a constant speedwhile changing the slope. We hypothesized that the one-skate would require lessoxygen consumption from 0 to 2% slope (at 12km/h) while two-skate would be moreeconomical on 4 to 6% slopes. Eleven nationally competitive cross country skiers wereasked to perform an incremental test on a rollerski treadmill. The speed was constantat 12km/hr and the grade was increased was from 0% to 6% grade by increments of 2%.At each grade, the skiers reached metabolic steady state for both techniques. Duringthe test oxygen consumption was continuously collected. No difference was found insteady state oxygen uptake for one- and two-skate for the grades tested. This resultsuggests that the oxygen cost of the one- and two- skate techniques is independent ofslope at 12km/h. We suspect that if the slope is increased to grades beyond 8%, the2-skate will become the more economical technique, however achieving steady state atslopes higher than 6% is exceedingly difficult.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".