Lower-limb joint kinetics in jump rope skills performed by competitive athletes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to characterise lower-limb joint kinetics during consecutive double unders and speed step sprints performed by competitive jump rope athletes, and to compare these measurements to running. Sixteen adolescent competitive jump rope athletes performed consecutive double under, speed step, and running trials while motion capture and ground reaction force data were collected. Lower-limb joint moments, power, and work were calculated using an inverse dynamics approach and discrete measurements were compared between skills. Peak ground reaction forces were similar between movements; however, knee and hip joint kinetics were distributed differently between double unders and speed step. In general, double unders were characterised by an increased reliance on knee joint kinetics, while speed step was characterised by an increased reliance on hip joint kinetics. Peak ankle moments were 9-20% greater in speed step when compared to double unders and running (p ≤ 0.050), and peak negative ankle power was 39-114% greater in double unders and speed step when compared to running (p ≤ 0.002). These findings may have important implications for injury risk and load management in jump rope athletes or other individuals that incorporate jump rope into their training programs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it