Predicting 6000m Performance Time in Junior Rowers using a 500m Indoor Rowing Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to develop a mathematical model to estimate the performance of an indoor rowing event of 6000m through an 500 m all out test in junior athletes. We selected141 subjects from the Brazilian rowing confederation database (15.9 ± 1.0 years), subsequently randomised the sample to the development (~70%) and cross-validation (~30%) groups of the mathematical model. Performance data for 500m and 6000m were collected (there was a 48h washout between one test and anoth-er).Subsequently, the mathematical model: Time(min) 6000m = { [( Time(s) 500-m * 6) * 2] / 60} + 1.3, was developed by arithmetic modeling using machine learning and Regression analysis, being tested by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Validity (Cb ), preci-sion (ρ) and bland-Altman plotting. The prediction of the result of 6000m through the mathematical model utilizando apenas o desempenho de 500m “all-out” test showed a significant reliability in de-velopment group (r2 = 0.730, ICC = 0.753; CCC = 0.895, Cb = 0.879, ρ: 0.957, pure error: 0.2 secounds (1.0% estimative error)); and in cross-validation group (r2 = 0.710, ICC = 0.747; CCC = 0.888, Cb = 0.875, ρ: 0.903, pure error: 0.3 secounds (1.4% estimative error)). When comparing the estimated re-sults of the 6000m performance by the mathematical model with the real performance of 6000m per-formed in indoor rowing, no statistical differences were observed. In addition, the mathematical model did not present a significant proportion bias in relation to the 6000 m performance in both groups. The mathematical model for predicting 6000m performance through a 500m fast test was significant for national level junior rowing 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".