Validity of the Entralpi force plate in the assessment of finger flexor performance metrics in rock climbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the validity of the Entralpi force plate in the assessment of finger flexor performance in rock climbers. In addition to a static force evaluation, peak force, peak impulse, and total impulse were measured during 30 all-out performance trials by 15 participants, in which force during the trials was recorded simultaneously by the Entralpi and a Pasco force plate. Agreement between devices was assessed by a variety of statistical analyses, including intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), coefficient of variation (CV), and Bland-Altman analyses. The static force evaluation showed a mean relative error of 0.41% and excellent day-to-day reliability (ICC = 1; CV = 0.03%). Peak force, peak impulse, and total impulse from the performance trials demonstrated strong agreement (ICC ≥ 0.991, CV ≤ 1.9%, Bland-Altman mean bias ≤ 0.5%). These results illustrate that the Entralpi force plate provides accurate and reliable data for rock climbing related tasks at an affordable cost.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".