Comment on: “Explosive is not a Term Defined in the International System of Units and Should not be Used to Describe Neuromuscular Performance”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.065 | 0.056 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.012 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".