MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403568043 · doi:10.1080/24748668.2024.2416740

Linear skating speed key performance indicators in ice hockey: global or cohort-dependent?

2024· article· en· W4403568043 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Bendus, Cory Kennedy, William Marshall, Brian D. Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeySpeed skatingKey (lock)Computer sciencePerformance indicatorAeronauticsSimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationBusinessMarketingComputer securityEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether off-ice key performance indicators (KPIs) of linear skating speed are global across all skaters or modulated based on relevant cohort-dependent covariates. A total of 112 development- and university-level hockey players completed on-ice (30-m skate; ICE 0–30 m) and off-ice assessments (30-m sprint with split times, countermovement jump; CMJ, broad jump, and maximum chin ups). A linear regression model was created to predict ICE 0–30 m times from off-ice inputs with height, body mass, age level, and strength level included as covariates. Model parameters were estimated using the LASSO method with k-fold cross validation. The final model had a cross-validated R2 of 0.806. The strongest predictor of ICE 0–30 m times was 20–30 m sprint time (ß = 0.088). Relative propulsive mean power (ß = -0.064) from the CMJ, 0–30 m sprint time (ß = 0.058), and broad jump (ß = −0.046) represented second-tier predictors. Both relative braking net impulse (ß = 0.043) and relative braking mean power (ß = −0.009) from the CMJ were predictive factors for lower strength players only. The results indicate that top speed sprinting represents the primary global KPI and closest off-ice proxy for skating speed regardless of cohort.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Performance Analysis in SportSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207