Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was verifying the effect of periodical complex training program on the body composition and ergometer record of national canoe team by taking 13 members of national canoe athletes (men’s kayak MK 200M 3 players, 1000M 3 players, Canadian C 1000M 4 players and women’s kayak WK 500M 3 players) as test subjects. The periodical complex training program consists of weekly two times of aerobic exercise (Tuesday and Thursday), weekly three times of anaerobic exercise (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) and flexibility exercise (gym ball). In order to examine the effect of periodical complex training program, the body composition, erogometer record, number of stroke and average power were measured before and after the program. In order to examine the difference in average between before and after the periodical complex training program, t-test (paired t-test) was done. When an assumption on normal distribution was not met, the nonparametric method Wilcoxon signed rank test was done. According to the result of periodical complex training program, there were statistically significant differences in weight, LBM, BMC and BMI of male members of national canoe team; however, there was no significant difference in female members of national canoe team in all items. According to the result of measurement on total time, total number of stroke and average speed by canoe ergometer device, there was no statistically significant difference. Though there was no statistically significant difference in the result measured by canoe ergometer by game, it was possible to confirm positive change of improving record. In conclusion, we suggest that the 12-week periodical complex training program enforced on members of national canoe athletes will contribute in the improvement of athletic performance in actual game situation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.028 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".