Kinematic differences in a skating stop-and-go task between male and female ice hockey players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kinematic differences exist between sexes when skating, but other tasks have not been compared. The objective was to compare the centre of mass (COM) and joint angles between female and male ice hockey players during a Stop-and-Go task. Male (n = 8) and female (n = 9) players completed a Stop-and-Go requiring them to skate (PRE phase), complete a side parallel stop (STOP phase), and then skate back to the initial position (POST phase). Kinematic data were collected with an 18-camera motion capture system. Spatiotemporal variables, COM, and joint angles were calculated. T-tests compared spatiotemporal variables between sexes, while 2-way analysis of variance compared COM and joint angle discrete values between sexes and phases. Males completed Stop-and-Go faster than females (mean difference = 0.36 s, p = 0.035). Females had higher COM vertical positions (p = 0.023) and lower velocities in the forward direction (p < 0.001). During PRE phase at the inside hip, females had greater adduction (p = 0.006), less extension (p = 0.027), and less flexion range of motion (p = 0.027). Males had greater bilateral knee flexion (p ≤ 0.029) across the phases. Joint angle and COM differences might account for the faster completion times in males. Increasing joint flexion maybe a strategy to improve performance during changes in direction in ice hockey players.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".