Differences in Physical Demands and Player’s Individual Performance Between Winning and Losing Quarters on U-18 Basketball Players During Competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study examines how physical demands and individual performance influence quarter results in under-18 basketball players during a six-day basketball tournament. Methods: Twelve male players from an elite Spanish team were tracked using inertial microsensors to monitor external load variables (player load, steps, and dynamic stress load). Individual performance was assessed using the performance index rating (PIR). Results: The results showed significant differences in physical demands between quarters. Also, player load (F = 3.75, p = 0.012) and steps (F = 5.29, p = 0.001) were higher in the first quarter and decreased over time. Winning quarters had significantly higher physical demands compared to losing quarters (PL: F = 27.13, p < 0.001; steps: F = 16.70, p < 0.001; DSL: F = 9.50, p < 0.001). On the contrary, PIR did not show significant differences between winning and losing quarters (F = 2.15, p = 0.143), but tended to be higher in winning quarters. Conclusions: These results suggest that physical demands are stronger predictors of quarter results than individual performance scores, indicating that such parameters should be closely monitored by sport scientists and coaches since they can play a crucial role in team success.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".