International Ski and Snowboard Federation consensus statement on warm-up and cool-down in competitive alpine and freestyle skiers and snowboarders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In diverse sports, warm-up (WUP) and cool-down (CD) activities are highly effective at improving performance-relevant factors and reducing the risk of injury when applied systematically; however, scientific evidence is widely lacking in snow sports. Similarly, there is a lack of international harmonisation with current best practices; this especially applies to prevention efforts targeting younger athletes. This International Ski and Snowboard Federation (FIS) consensus statement aims to develop and promote recommendations regarding physical and psychological WUP&CD in competitive alpine and freestyle skiers and snowboarders. The selected panel members represented a group of experts diverse in terms of gender, expertise/background, level of competition and skiing and snowboarding discipline. They included researchers, officials, physicians, physiotherapists, coaches or former athletes with extensive experience in the subject area. However, there was a gender imbalance in the composition of the panel (7 women and 13 men) and certain freestyle disciplines (eg, aerials and moguls) were under-represented. Most importantly, there was a strong over-representation of European members (85%) on the consensus panel. For the consensus process, the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method was used. The panellists were asked to rate, discuss and rerate statements derived from the literature or expert/panellist opinions. The process was based on three online consensus sessions with different preparatory and follow-up tasks and three rounds of an online survey to vote on the statements. The final version of the FIS consensus statement was developed and approved after two iterative rounds of manuscript revision by the panel members. It is intended to guide athletes, coaches, medical staff of international and national federations and other entities who can promote and support appropriate WUP&CD practices for competitive alpine and freestyle skiers and snowboarders by providing support, resources or infrastructure.
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 | 0.116 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
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".