MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Paradigm Shift in Critical Speed Application and Modification for Shuttle Running: A Narrative Review

2021· review· en· W3128350732 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Kramer, Eva Piatrikova

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMulti-stage fitness testTest (biology)Space ShuttleShuttle vectorComputer scienceSimulationAeronauticsEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overarching purpose of this review was to highlight the utility of different aerobic field tests in terms of the parameters they provide, with a specific focus on shuttle running and all-out testing. Various field tests are discussed in detail and are categorised according to linear continuous running tests (e.g. 12-minute Cooper Test, University of Montreal Track Test [UMTT], 1200/1600 m time trials, 3-minute all-out test for running [3MT]), intermittent shuttle running tests (e.g. yo-yo inter-mittent recovery test level 1 [YYIR1], 30-15 intermittent fitness test [IFT], and the intermittent all-out shuttle test [IAOST]), and continuous shuttle running tests (e.g. 1.2 km shuttle run test [1.2SRT], maximal multi-stage 20-m shuttle test [MSR], 25-m, 30 m and 50-m 3-minute all-out shuttle test [AOST]). Readers will be guided through the theoretical and practical underpinnings of the 3MT methodology, where the all-out testing methodology is stationed within the testing paradigm, and how to practically implement and interpret the results thereof.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.333
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→