MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Physical Qualities Discriminate Playing Level In Elite Youth Hockey Players

2020· article· en· W3041105743 on OpenAlexaff
David Doan, Sébastien Lagrange, Pierre-Marc Ferland, Alain Steve Comtois

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatistical significanceMathematicsStatisticsPost hocLower bodyStatistical analysisIce hockeyVertical jumpPsychologyPhysical therapyOrthodonticsMedicineJumpPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare physical test results between playing levels and positions in youth elite hockey players. METHODS: Subjects (n=49) came from 3 distinct levels: Bantam AAA Relève (the lowest, n=16), Bantam AAA Major (the second highest, n=17), and Midget Espoir (the highest, n=16). Physical characteristics and qualities were measured. The stationary broad jump was utilized to measure lower-body power. Jump distance was measured from toes to the closest landed heel. The best of two attempts was marked as the final score. The seated medicine ball throw was utilized to measure upper-body power. Throw distance was measured from the back of the wall to where the ball first made contact with the ground. The 20-meter shuttle run test was utilized to measure aerobic capacity. VO2max was estimated from the last level completed with the Leger-Lambert formula. Results are presented as mean and standard deviation. A single factor (level or position) ANOVA and when significant a post-hoc analysis was also performed by using the least significant difference (LSD) for pairwise comparisons between groups tests results. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Analysis was conducted with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows version 25. RESULTS: Hockey players of the two higher levels were significantly (p<0.05) taller (1.73 ± 0.08m and 1.74 ± 0.08m, respectively, vs 1.63 ± 0.09m), heavier (66.68 ± 8.09m and 68.60 ± 10.96m respectively vs 53.52 ± 8.73m), jumped further (2.25 ± 0.13m and 2.26 ± 0.12m respectively vs 2.01 ± 0.20m), and had greater aerobic capacity (3.87 ± 0.52 L/min and 3.84 ± 0.57 L/min respectively vs 2.96 ± 0.49 L/min) than the hockey players from the lower level. However, the higher level players, scored lower than the middle level at the seated medicine ball throw (3.74 ± 0.49m vs 4.60 ± 0.48m), even though the middle level scored higher than the lower level (4.60 ± 0.48m vs 3.49 ± 0.53m). Results also show that the goaltenders were significantly taller than the other hockey players (1.77 ± 0.10m vs 1.72 ± 0.08m for defensemen and 1.67 ± 0.10m for forwards). CONCLUSION: The stationary broad jump, the seated medicine ball throw and the 20 meters shuttle run are field tests that could be used in order to discriminate playing levels in youth elite hockey players.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→