MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4210384003 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.751030

Quantification of Respiratory and Muscular Perceived Exertions as Perceived Measures of Internal Loads During Domestic and Overseas Training Camps in Elite Futsal Players

2022· article· en· W4210384003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu-Xian Lu, Filipe Manuel Clemente, Pedro Bezerra, Zachary J. Crowley‐McHattan, Shih-Chung Cheng, Chia-Hua Chien, Cheng‐Deng Kuo, Yung‐Sheng Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTaipei Veterans General Hospital
KeywordsPerceived exertionRating of perceived exertionPsychologyPhysical therapyExertionReference valuesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicineInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scales with respiratory and muscular illustrations are recognized as simple and practical methods to understand individual psychometric characteristics in breathing and muscle exertion during exercise. However, the implementation of respiratory and muscular RPE to quantify training load in futsal training camps has not been examined. This study investigates respiratory and muscular RPE relationships during domestic training camps (DTC) and overseas training camps (OTC) in an under 20 futsal national team. Methods Data collected from eleven field players were used for comparison in this study (age = 18.7 ± 0.7 years, height = 171.9 ± 6.1 cm, body weight = 64.2 ± 8.4 kg). All players reported Borg CR10 RPE (RPECR10) and 7-scales respiratory RPE (RPErespiration) and muscular RPE (RPEmuscle) (Dalhousie pictorial scales) after training sessions and matches. Additionally, total distance covered (TD) and training impulse (TRIMP) were used to quantify external and internal loads via the Polar Team Pro system. Paired-sample t-tests were used to compare the RPECR10, RPErespiration, RPEmuscle, TD, and TRIMP between DTC and OTC. Furthermore, linear regression was performed to determine the relationships among all RPE scales, TD, and TRIMP. Results The RPECR10 (p = 0.047), TD (p < 0.001), and TRIMP (p < 0.001) showed significant difference between DTC and OTC. Furthermore, linear regression analyses showed significant correlation between RPErespiration and RPEmuscle (DTC: r = 0.857, p = 0.006; OTC: r = 0.924, p < 0.001), RPECR10 and RPErespiration (DTC: r = 0.857, p = 0.001; OTC: r = 0.863, p = 0.001), and RPECR10 and RPEmuscle (DTC: r = 0.906, p < 0.001; OTC: r = 0.900, p < 0.001). Conclusion Pictorial RPErespiration or RPEmuscle can be used as an alternative to quantify perceived measures of internal loads during DTC and OTC in futsal players. Interpretation of perceived measures of training load and cardiac-related responses in association with external training loads during short-term training camps would be useful in further understanding the demands of futsal players’ experience in these circumstances.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Psychology→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→