MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111969754 · doi:10.3390/ijerph17249250

Maximal Time Spent at VO2max from Sprint to the Marathon

2020· article· en· W3111969754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire A. Molinari, Johnathan Edwards, Véronique Billat

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSprintVO2 maxMathematicsAnimal sciencePhysical therapyMedicineHeart rateInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Until recently, it was thought that maximal oxygen uptake (VO2max) was elicited only in middle-distance events and not the sprint or marathon distances. We tested the hypothesis that VO2max can be elicited in both the sprint and marathon distances and that the fraction of time spent at VO2max is not significantly different between distances. Methods: Seventy-eight well-trained males (mean [SD] age: 32 [13]; weight: 73 [9] kg; height: 1.80 [0.8] m) performed the University of Montreal Track Test using a portable respiratory gas sampling system to measure a baseline VO2max. Each participant ran one or two different distances (100 m, 200 m, 800 m, 1500 m, 3000 m, 10 km or marathon) in which they are specialists. Results: VO2max was elicited and sustained in all distances tested. The time limit (Tlim) at VO2max on a relative scale of the total time (Tlim at VO2max%Ttot) during the sprint, middle-distance, and 1500 m was not significantly different (p > 0.05). The relevant time spent at VO2max was only a factor for performance in the 3000 m group, where the Tlim at VO2max%Ttot was the highest (51.4 [18.3], r = 0.86, p = 0.003). Conclusions: By focusing on the solicitation of VO2max, we demonstrated that the maintenance of VO2max is possible in the sprint, middle, and marathon distances.

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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0050.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207