PREDICTION OF ONE-HOUR RUNNING PERFORMANCE USING CONSTANT DURATION TESTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical velocity (CV) represents, theoretically, the highest velocity that can be sustained without fatigue. The aim of this study was to compare CV computed from 5 mathematical models in order to determine which CV estimate is better correlated with 1-hour performance and which model provides the most accurate prediction of performance. Twelve trained middle- and long-distance male runners (29 ± 5 years) performed 3 randomly ordered constant duration tests (6, 9, and 12 minutes), a maximal running velocity test for the estimation of CV, and a 1-hour track test (actual performance). Two linear, 2 nonlinear, and 1 exponential mathematical models were used to estimate CV and to predict the highest velocity that could be sustained during 1 hour (predicted performance). Although all CV estimates were correlated with performance (0.80 < r < 0.93, p < 0.01), it appeared that CV estimated from the exponential model was more closely associated with performance than all other models (r = 0.93; p < 0.01). Analysis of the bias ± 95% interval of confidence between actual and predicted performance revealed that none of the models provided an accurate prediction of the 1-hour performance velocity. In conclusion, the estimation of CV allows us to rank middle- and long-distance runners with regard to their ability to perform well in long-distance running. However, no models provide an accurate prediction of performance that could be used as a reference for coaches or athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".