MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393009754 · doi:10.5114/biolsport.2024.134756

Characterizing the most demanding passages of kinematic andmechanical activity in elite football: a multifactorial approach

2024· article· en· W4393009754 on OpenAlexaff
Farzad Yousefian, Abdullah Zafar, Dan Fransson, Magni Mohr, João Brito, Bruno Travassos

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Sport · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballKinematicsEliteFootball playersElite athletesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMedicinePhysical therapyPhysicsGeographyAthletesPolitical scienceClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the 5-minute most demanding passages (MDP) of kinematic (distance covered) and mechanical (acceleration and deceleration) activities in elite male football according to multifactorial criterion performance variables.Global positioning systems data were collected from 39 players across 45 matches in the Swedish first division (n = 329 observations).The multifactorial kinematic variable (MDPk) was composed of the concurrent distances covered at moderate-speed running, high-speed running, and sprinting distances, and the multifactorial mechanical (MDPm) considered the concurrent occurrences of high-intensity acceleration and deceleration activities.A moving average method was used to identify the MDP across a 5-minute period.The frequency distribution of the multifactorial variables, and differences in the time of occurrence and magnitude between multifactorial performance variables and their univariate constituent variables were investigated.Frequency distribution analysis revealed MDPk and MDPm peaked in the first 5 min of the match (MDPk: χ 2 (15, N = 329) = 135.88,p ≤ 0.001, W: 0.64, 115.99 ± 32.7 s; MDPm: χ 2 (15, N = 329) = 31.02,p ≤ 0.001, W: 0.31, 101.21 ± 25.1 s; p ≤ 0.0004).Within each half, differences in the MDP commencement time between the multifactorial variables and their respective discrete univariate constituent variables were trivial to small (MDPk effect size (ES): 0.04-0.21;MDPm ES: 0.02-0.11).Linear mixed model analysis demonstrated that the MDP magnitude of multifactorial variables were approximately 8-28% and 8-21% lower across the match and halves, respectively, compared to the MDP of their respective univariate constituent variables (p ≤ 0.001; r = 0.26-0.62).The greatest differences between the respective multifactorial and discrete constituent variables were observed for sprinting (-28%) and high-intensity acceleration (-22%).The results reveal that the MDP is distinguished based on peak kinematic and mechanical demands, which occur at discrete periods and exhibit distinct locomotor profiles across the match and within each half.Practitioners should consider the methods of identifying the MDP, as the selection of univariate and multifactorial kinematic and mechanical performance variables can impact MDP characterization, which can qualify the designing of bespoke training protocols.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.272 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of SportSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207