The Effects of Knee Flexion on Tennis Serve Performance of Intermediate Level Tennis Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of knee flexion during the preparation phase of a serve on the tennis serve performance, using inertial sensors. Thirty-two junior tennis players were divided into two groups based on their maximum knee flexion during the preparation phase of serve: Smaller (SKF) and Greater (GKF) Knee Flexion. Their racket velocity, racket height, and knee extension velocity were compared during the tennis serve. Inertial sensors tracked participants’ shank, thigh, and racket motions while performing five first, flat, and valid serves. Knee flexion was analysed during the preparation phase of serve, knee extension velocity after this phase, racket velocity just before ball impact, and racket height at impact. Pre-impact racket velocity (mean difference [MD] = 3.33 km/h, p = 0.004) and the knee extension velocity (MD = 130.30 °/s, p = 0.012) were higher in the GKF than SKF; however, racket impact height was not different between groups (p = 0.236). This study’s findings support the importance of larger knee flexion during the preparation phase of serve-to-serve performance. This motion should be seen as a contributor to racket velocity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".