MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

External Loads Of Men’S And Women’S Varsity Ice Hockey Players During A Practice And Game

2020· article· en· W3041053967 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Gamble, Jessica L. Bigg, Lawrence L. Spriet

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyAccelerometerAnimal scienceAccelerationMathematicsDemographyMedicinePhysical therapyPhysicsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To quantify and compare the external load demands of men’s and women’s varsity ice hockey players during one practice and game using a local positioning system (LPS). METHODS: Female (n = 24, 19.8 ± 1.4 yr, 68.0 ± 6.9 kg, 168.1 ± 5.9 cm) and male (n = 26, 22.1 ± 1.1 yr, 85.9 ± 5.4 kg, 181.3 ± 5.1 cm) varsity ice hockey players consented to wear a player-tracking sensor (accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer) during one practice (P) and one game (G) in an arena outfitted with an LPS. On-ice measures (mean ± SD) included accelerations, decelerations, accumulated acceleration load, distance travelled, and skating speed. RESULTS: The average number of accelerations per skater were not different for females (P: 30.7 ± 12.6 vs. G: 26.6 ± 10.3; p=0.259) but were significantly greater in P than G for males (71.6 ± 26.7 vs. 48.0 ± 23.2; p=0.004). The average number of decelerations followed a similar trend between P and G for females (38.9 ± 14.7 vs. 47.5 ± 18.6; p=0.101) and males (79.6 ± 27.8 vs. 56.0 ± 24.8; p=0.006). Average peak acceleration did not differ between P and G for females (3.7 ± 0.7 vs. 3.6 ± 0.5 m/s2; p=0.586) or males (4.2 ± 0.5 vs. 4.3 ± 0.8 m/s2; p=0.591), while accumulated acceleration load was higher for P vs. G only for females (138.4 ± 23.1 vs. 165.0 ± 40.5; p=0.012). There was no difference in P or G distance travelled for females (4577.7 ± 1127.7 vs. 5332.6 ± 1614.5 m; p=0.084) or males (6439.8 ± 1456.0 vs. 7485.3 ± 2495.2 m; p=0.096). Although P and G peak skating speed was similar for females (29.3 ± 5.0 vs. 27.7 ± 3.9 m/s; p=0.236) and males (32.6 ± 3.6 vs. 30.8 ± 4.1 m/s; p=0.128), average P skating speed was lower than G for both females (3.7 ± 0.9 vs. 7.0 ± 2.0 m/s; p<0.001) and males (5.4 ± 1.5 vs. 6.7 ± 1.9 m/s; p=0.005). Males had significantly greater accelerations (count and peak), accumulated acceleration load, distance travelled, and peak skating speed in P and G compared to females (p<0.019). Peak decelerations and average speed in P and G did not differ between females and males (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Preliminary data captured using an LPS suggests that several components of external load are different between P and G for female and male ice hockey players. Furthermore, the external load of ice hockey appears to be greater in males than females. This research was funded by a grant from Mitacs and PepsiCo.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports injuries and prevention→French-language works237,207→