Methodological Guidelines Designed to Improve the Quality of Research on Cross-Country Skiing
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
Abstract Cross-country (XC) ski races involve a variety of formats, two different techniques and tracks with highly variable topography and environmental conditions. In addition, XC skiing is a major component of both Nordic combined and biathlon competitions. Research in this area, both in the laboratory and field, encounters certain difficulties that may reduce the reliability and validity of the data obtained, as well as complicate comparisons between studies. Here, 13 international experts propose specific guidelines designed to enhance the quality of research and publications on XC skiing, as well as on the biathlon and Nordic combined skiing. We consider biomechanical (kinematic, kinetic and neuromuscular) and physiological methodology (at the systemic and/or muscle level), providing recommendations for standardization/control of the experimental setup. We describe the types of measuring equipment and technology that are most suitable in this context. Moreover, we also deal with certain aspects of nomenclature of the classical and skating sub-techniques. In addition to enhancing the quality of studies on XC skiing, Nordic combined and biathlon, our guidelines should also be of value for sport scientists and coaches in other disciplines where physiological and/or biomechanical measurements are performed in the laboratory and/or outdoors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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