MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403144647 · doi:10.1007/s10286-024-01070-z

In at the deep end: the physiological challenges associated with artistic swimming

2024· letter· en· W4403144647 on OpenAlexafffund
Emma L. Williams, C.J. Mathias, Shubhayan Sanatani, Mike Tipton, Victoria E. Claydon

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Autonomic Research · 2024
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalBoucher Institute of Naturopathic MedicineSimon Fraser UniversityRoyal Columbian Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeurologyMedicineDiabetes mellitusNeurosciencePsychologyPsychiatryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artistic (synchronized) swimming is an Olympic sport that combines skills of swimming, dance, weightlifting, cheerleading, and gymnastics.In competition, athletes are required to perform routines comprised of elaborate movements in the water, synchronized to music, which last from 2 to 5 min [1].These require athletes to perform sustained vigorous exercise with intermittent prolonged breath-holds that can cumulatively account for 50% or more of their entire routine [2].By combining breath-holding with near-maximal physical output, artistic swimming provides a significant and unique physiological stress.The specific nature of this stress is poorly understood, in part due to the challenge of making physiological measurements underwater, methodological inconsistencies across investigations conducted to date [3][4][5][6][7], and the rapid evolution of the sport's complexity and difficulty since it was introduced into the Olympic program in 1984 [3].The complex physiological paradigm of artistic swimming is further compounded by the simultaneous provocation of conflicting sympathetic "fight and flight" and parasympathetic "rest and digest" responses, with

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.516
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.339
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.131 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Autonomic ResearchSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207