MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157198103 · doi:10.82308/16415

Study of soft exoskeleton with elastic assistance on ice hockey forward skating acceleration

2018· article· en· W3157198103 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Brian D. McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicWinter Sports Injuries and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsIce hockeyExoskeletonAccelerationSpeed skatingGeologyComputer scienceAeronauticsSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationEngineeringPhysicsMedicineClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Master's study examined the performance effects of a soft exoskeleton designed to store and return elastic energy about the hip joint during ice hockey skating starts. Three elastic resistance conditions ("Soft", "Medium", "Stiff") were examined. Kinematic, kinetic and perception data were collected on nine male high calibre hockey players during skating start accelerations over nine meters. This study demonstrated the feasibility of introducing soft exoskeletons to store and return elastic energy to an athlete's body while skating on ice. Several participants responded well, on average yielding 1.54% shorter times during skating start performance (p=0.052). Gross skating kinetic and kinematic patterns were unaltered, though reduced stride length and double support times were counter balanced by higher cadence. Based on individual time performance and preference measures, specific elastic resistances need to be tailored to each athlete in order to optimize their performance. Further study is warranted with larger sample sizes, both male and female athletes, longer familiarization periods, and on different skating tasks.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicWinter Sports Injuries and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207