MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324152581 · doi:10.3390/healthcare11060849

A Scoping Review with Bibliometric Analysis of Para-Rowing: State of the Art and Future Directions

2023· review· en· W4324152581 on OpenAlexaff
Luca Puce, Carlo Biz, Carlo Trompetto, Lucio Marinelli, Antonio Currà, Luca Cavaggioni, Matteo Formica, Vittorio Vecchi, Maria Chiara Cerchiaro, Khaled Trabelsi, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Pietro Ruggieri

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRowingExcellenceAthletesPsychologyMedical educationPolitical scienceMedicinePhysical therapyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Para-rowing is a format of rowing practiced by people with different types of disabilities, thanks to adapted equipment set-ups and regulations. Para-rowing made its debut recently at the 2008 Paralympic Games. According to the mandate of the "International Paralympic Committee", para-rowers should be enabled to pursue sporting excellence. Therefore, rigorous research is needed in terms of well-designed, high-quality studies. To the best of our knowledge, there are no systematic appraisals of the body of scholarly evidence in the field of para-rowing. As such, a scoping review enhanced by bibliometric analyses was carried out to provide a comprehensive synthesis of knowledge related to para-rowing for the perusal of practitioners and athletes. By mining eighteen major databases, 17 studies were retained in the present review. The included studies were found to focus on a range of aspects involving health, the etiology of injuries (n = 5), psychological and physiological responses (n = 5), performance, biomechanical analysis (n = 4), and new analytical approaches for kinematic assessments and predictions of mechanical outputs in para-rowers (n = 3). The scholarly community on para-rowing consists of 78 researchers, 16 (20.51%) of whom are highly interconnected. The most prolific author was Smoljanović T., from Croatia, with three items/documents. In total, 93.6% of scholars have authored one single document. Topological features indicated a highly fragmented and dispersed, poorly connected community characterized by a high number of clusters and a low strength of connections. In terms of publication years, the first scholarly article dates back to 2008, with four articles (23.5%) published in the current year, showing an increasing interest in this para-sports discipline. Finally, gaps in current research on para-rowing were identified in terms of overlooked topics, including sports nutrition, doping, and psychological aspects in para-rowers other than those with visual impairment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesBibliometrics
Consensus categoriesBibliometrics
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0150.131
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.342 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207