Does Sleep Quality between Back-to-Back Matches Influence Running Performance in Canadian Female University Soccer Players? A GPS-based Time-Series Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Soccer competitions performed with less than or equal to 24 hours of recuperation, including inadequate amounts of quality sleep, may adversely affect performance. Objective: The purpose of this research was to assess running performance between self-reported good and poor sleepers in female university sport soccer players (N = 12) in matches played with ≤ 24 hours of recovery. Methods: In this cross-sectional and observational study, twelve female university soccer players (mean age: 19.44 + 1.69 yr) were followed throughout one season of competition using a time-series analysis of running performance and comparing good (n = 7) versus poor (n = 5) sleepers. Global positioning systems (GPS) were used to evaluate jogging/sprinting performance throughout the 2016 soccer season. Good and poor sleepers were determined via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Results: There was a significant reduction (p .05) in running performance from the first to the second game in the entire cohort, while post hoc analysis indicated that good sleepers performed better on the relative speed performance parameter when comparing the first game to the second game; however, there was no change in this performance variable in the poor sleepers between the first and second game. Conclusions: Our study indicates that Canadian female university soccer players may need longer than 24 hours of recovery to perform optimally in subsequent matches. Generally, good and poor sleepers perform similarly except for GPS relative speed in back-to-back matches with 24 hours of recovery.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".