Analysis of Grip Amplitude on Velocity in Paralympic Powerlifting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Paralympic Powerlifting (PP) is a Paralympic modality that is predominantly about developing maximal force, as there are athletes who lift three times their body weight. Our objective was to evaluate the averages of the velocity for 30% and 50% of 1 Maximum Repetition (1 RM) on different amplitudes of the footprint in PP athletes; (2) Methods: The intervention happened over two weeks, with the first being devoted to the familiarization and testing of 1 RM, while in the second week, through the use of a linear Encoder, tests of velocity average (VA), velocity average propulsive (VAP), and velocity peak (VP) were carried out with loads of 30% and 50% of a maximum repetition 1 RM for 1× of the biacromial distance (BAD) 1.3 × BAD, 1.5 × BAD; (3) Results: There was a significant difference in the average velocity of 1 × BAD (1.16 ± 0.14 m/s, 1.07-1.26 IC; η2p 0.20) when compared to 1.3 × BAD (1.00 ± 0.17 m/s, 0.90-1.09 IC; η2p 0.20) over 30% of 1 RM. For the other velocity variables for 30% and 50% of 1 RM with different grip amplitudes, there were no significant differences; (4) Conclusions: In PP, the 1 × BAD footprint contributes significantly to VA at 30% of 1 RM when compared to the 1.3 × BAD and 1.5 × BAD footprints. For loading at 50% of 1 RM the VA, VAP and VP decreased when compared to 30% of 1 RM, to the extent that the VAP and VP generated with the 1.3 × BAD and 1.5 × BAD footprints were higher than those with 1 × BAD, other than for VA 50% of 1 RM, where the 1 × BAD footprint was superior to the others.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".