MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409602143 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-026

Numerical simulation study of physical fitness changes in track and field athletes with different training cycles

2025· article· en· W4409602143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack and field athleticsAthletesTraining (meteorology)Track (disk drive)Physical fitnessField (mathematics)Computer sciencePsychologySimulationPhysical therapyMedicineMathematicsGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper realizes the detection of changes in physical fitness of track and field athletes in different training cycles by monitoring their sports training functions.The method used is the time series model ARMA.The athletic training function time series data were preprocessed to fit the ARMA (p,q) model, and the optimal time series fitting model was selected by examining the coefficient of determination, AIC criterion, and SC criterion.Four biochemical indexes, hemoglobin, urea, creatine kinase, and testosterone, were selected as the content of training monitoring for track and field athletes, and the ARMA(1,1) model was selected to analyze the changes in physical fitness of track and field athletes in different training cycles.Taking the hemoglobin index (HB) as an example, through the numerical simulation of the time series of HB levels of 16 track and field athletes preparing for the 15th National Games in Guangdong Province, it can be learned that the change trends of male and female track and field athletes are basically the same throughout the whole year training cycle.From the first cycle, the athletes' Hb levels began to decrease, fell to the lowest level in the third cycle, and rebounded in the fourth cycle, reaching the highest Hb level in the winter training period.

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 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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207