The effect of fatigue on climbing fluidity and hand movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In rock climbing, climbers use their arms to regulate their posture on the wall, which can lead to localised muscle fatigue. Evidence shows fatigue is the primary cause of falls, but little is known about how fatigue specifically affects climbing rhythm and hand movements. The present study examined climbing fluidity and hand movements on an indoor climbing wall before and after a specific fatiguing protocol. Seventeen climbers completed three repetitions of a challenging climbing route (21 on Ewbank scale) with different levels of localised arm fatigue. Climbers' movements were tracked using 3D motion capture, and their hand actions assessed using notational analysis. Seventy markers were used to create 15 rigid body segments and the participants' centre of mass. The global entropy index was calculated on the path of the participants' centre of mass. Climbers fell more often when fatigued, but there were no significant differences in hip jerk or global entropy index when fatigued. No significant differences were found between the number of exploratory or performatory hand movements with different amounts of fatigue. The results suggest that localised arm fatigue affects a climber's ability to prevent themselves from falling, but it does not specifically affect their fluidity.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".