On-Ice Performance Characteristics of Elite and Non-elite Womenʼs Ice Hockey Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare skating performance and on-ice fitness of elite and non-elite women's ice hockey players. Twenty-three players who were participants in an organized women's hockey training program were tested. Seven of the elite players were members of the 1996/1997 Canadian National Team and 1 was from the Finnish National Team. Skating tests included (a) agility cornering S turn (AGL), (b) 6.10-m acceleration (ACC), (c) 47.85-m speed (SPD), (d) 15.20-m full speed (FSPD), and (e) Reed repeat sprint skate test (RRS). Elite players were older (25 ± 5.34 vs. 19 ± 2.65 years) and had better performance in the following variables: FSPD (1.88 ± 0.11 vs. 1.96 ± 0.86 seconds); RRS, drop-off percent (23.25 ± 5.85% vs. 34.98 ± 8.45%), drop-off time (3.43 ± 0.78 vs. 5.35 ± 1.23 seconds); σ of 6 repeats (101.96 ± 2.74 vs. 112.78 ± 4.61 seconds); and anaerobic capacity (AnCap; 5.35 ± 0.14 W·kg−1 vs. 4.87 ± 0.19 W·kg−1) as calculated by the formulas of Watson and Sargeant (23). These results suggest that elite women's ice hockey players are older, faster skaters; have a better drop-off percent, drop-off time, and σ of 6 repeats in a repeat skate test; and have greater on-ice anaerobic capacity than non-elite players.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".