A New Taxonomy for Postactivation Potentiation in Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Postactivation potentiation (PAP) mechanisms and responses have a long scientific history. However, to this day there is still controversy regarding the mechanisms underlying enhanced performance after a conditioning activity. More recently, the term postactivation performance enhancement (PAPE) has been proposed with differing associated mechanisms and protocols than with PAP. However, these 2 terms (PAP and PAPE) may not adequately describe all specific potentiation responses and mechanisms and can also be complementary, in some cases. Purpose: This commentary presents and discusses the similarities and differences between PAP and PAPE and, subsequently, elaborates on a new taxonomy for better describing performance potentiation in sport settings. Conclusion: The elaborated taxonomy proposes the formula "Post-[CONDITIONING ACTIVITY] [VERIFICATION TEST] potentiation in [POPULATION]." This taxonomy would avoid erroneous identification of isolated physiological attributes and provide individualization and better applicability of conditioning protocols in sport settings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".