Internal and external workload in national and international netball competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in workload exist between netball playing positions and competition levels, but no research has compared workloads experienced by the same elite players during national and international competitions. This study collected internal (heart rate) and external (PlayerLoad·min−1) workload data per match quarter from 44 players during a national competition and 12 players during an international competition. Nine players played in both competitions. Linear mixed models compared percentage of match quarter in each heart rate zone and PlayerLoad·min−1 between competitions for each playing position. Workloads against low- and high-ranked international opponents were also compared. Internal workloads were greater in national compared to international competition for GD and WD positions. PlayerLoad·min−1 was significantly higher by 8–13% in the national competition for positions WD and C, and by 5–8% in the international competition for GD and GA. Positional differences may indicate a role of the team’s tactical style of play. Workloads were generally greater against higher- rather than lower-ranked international opponents. These results indicate that tactical factors in combination with playing position and opposition characteristics should be considered when preparing physically for matches.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".