MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405945246 · doi:10.1519/ssc.0000000000000878

A Narrative Review of Rebound Jumping and Fast Stretch-Shortening Cycle Mechanics

2024· review· en· W4405945246 on OpenAlex

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

VenueStrength and conditioning journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJumpingNarrative reviewStretch shortening cycleJumpComputer scienceAthletesPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyPhysical therapyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Rebound jumping is one of the most commonly used movement patterns to assess and monitor fast stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) mechanics, a critical component for rapid movements like sprinting, jumping, and directional changes. This narrative review explores the mechanical and neuromuscular mechanics underlying fast SSC function and critically evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used testing protocols, including drop jumps and multiple rebound jump tests, along with commonly reported metrics from these tests. By integrating scientific evidence with practical applications, the aim of this review is to guide practitioners in selecting appropriate assessment tools and implementing evidence-based strategies to evaluate fast SSC performance in athletes.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.324 · 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