MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405661002 · doi:10.47206/ijsc.v4i1.367

Comment on: “Explosive is not a Term Defined in the International System of Units and Should not be Used to Describe Neuromuscular Performance”

2024· article· en· W4405661002 on OpenAlex
Moritz Schumann, Joshua F. Feuerbacher, Julián Alcázar, David G. Behm, Urs Granacher, Keijo Häkkinen, Simon Walker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Strength and Conditioning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExplosive materialTerm (time)MedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceChemistryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with great interest the article “Explosive is not a Term Defined in the International System of Units and Should not be Used to Describe Neuromuscular Performance”, which aims to discuss the potential misuse of the term “explosive” in the sports science literature to describe neuromuscular performance. We would like to thank the authors for initiating this important discussion on the appropriate use of terminologies to describe human movement, particularly in the field of strength and conditioning. In fact, disagreement and debate are common to all scientific disciplines, including sport and exercise science, and serve to improve our understanding. This debate also provides an opportunity to clarify and specify the use of the term “explosive” in the scientific literature.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.255 · 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