Assessment of asymmetry at different intensities between conventional and paralympic powerlifting athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powerlifting competitions require consistent and symmetric lifting of heavy loads and maximal effort, in which, asymmetric lifting results in trial invalidation. Symmetry during this very high intensity movement is determinant to athletes' performance and success in competitions. This study aimed to compare the asymmetry between Conventional Powerlifting athletes (CP) and Paralympic (PP) athletes at intensities of 45 and 80% 1RM before and after a training session. Twenty-two male athletes (11 CP: 29.84 ± 4.21 and 11 PP: 30.81 ± 8.05 years old) participated in this study. Mean Propulsive Velocity (MPV), Maximum Velocity (Vmax) and Power during the concentric and eccentric phases were evaluated at 45%-1RM before and after a training session. For the intensity of 80%-1RM, MPV, Vmax and Power were measured in the first and last series (5 series of 5 repetitions: 5X5) of a training session. PP athletes demonstrated lower velocity and greater symmetry at 45%-1RM, but higher velocity and less asymmetry at 80%-1RM, when compared to CP. The data indicated that PP athletes tend to be slower at lower intensities, faster at higher intensities in absolute values, and have greater symmetry than CP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".