MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Relationship Between Weighted Standing Long Jump And 20 Meters Sprint Performance

2020· article· en· W3041612480 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yannick Hogue-Tremblay, Alain Steve Comtois, Vincent J. Carey, J E Charron, Philippe Roy, Viviane Marcotte L'Heureux

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintJumpMathematicsAnthropometryJumpingBody weightPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyStatisticsMedicinePhysicsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standing long jump (SLJ) is intensively used in fitness preparation as a measure of lower limb power. The SLJ has also been shown to be related to maximal sprint speed. The power deployed during a SLJ can be calculated, but it is unknown what the effect of body weight has on the relationship between sprint speed and power. PURPOSE: Explore the relationship between a 20m sprint and the SLJ under 5 loading conditions (0%, 1%, 3%, 10% and 15% of bodyweight). METHODS: Anthropometric measures (n=13) were taken prior to testing sessions (Age 16.0±0.7 years; Height 1.80±0.10 m; weight, 90.4±20.0 kg). The loads used during different loading conditions were confirmed using a bodyweight scale (Omron, Canada). SLJ distances were measured from toes (starting line) to the closest heel using a jump mat (Javy Sports, Singapore). Peak velocity (PV), peak power (PP) and relative power (RP) to body weight were measured using a linear transducer (TENDO SPORTS MACHINES, London, UK) for each loading condition. The protocol consisted of 2 sprints of 20m with 3 minutes of recovery between sprints. The best of 2 completed attempts per loading condition was retained same for the best sprint time. The time at 10m and 20m were measured with photocell timing gates (Brower Timing System, Utah, USA). Linear regressions and 2-tailed Pearson correlations were calculated (SPSS Ver 26). RESULTS: Multiple significant (p<0,05) correlations were observed (r=0.573 to 0.892). Findings show that PV (r=-0.640, r=-0.619, r=-0.646) with a load of 3, 10 and 15% respectively, RP (r=-0.635) with a load of 3%, and SLJ distance (r=-0.573, r=0.736) with a load of 10 and 15% respectively were significantly correlated with the 10m during sprint time. Also, PV (r=-0.577, r=-0.892) with a load of 1 and 15% respectively, PP (r=-0,656) with a load of 15%, RP (r=-0,859) with a load of 15% were significantly correlated with the 20m sprint time. CONCLUSION: Weighted SLJ using 15% of bodyweight is better correlated to 10m or 20m sprint times than a standard SLJ. We propose different formulas to predict peak velocity, 10m and 20m sprint time all based on SLJ distance. Peak velocity(m/s) = (Distance(m) x 2.50) – 0.88 R2 = 0.601, p ≤ 0.01, SEE=0.38 10m time(s) = 2.98 - (SLJ15% distance(m) x 0.55) R2 = 0.541, p ≤ 0.01, SEE=0.08 20m time(s) = 4.89 – (SLJ15% peak velocity(m/s) x 0,54) R2 = 0.796, p ≤ 0.01, SEE=0.10

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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