MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414059941 · doi:10.1080/14763141.2025.2557398

Breaking the ice: exploring sex-based variations in the mechanics of ice hockey slap shots

2025· article· en· W4414059941 on OpenAlexafffund
Ethan W. C. Wilkie, Philippe J. Renaud, Shawn M. Robbins

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Biomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSports Dynamics and Biomechanics
Canadian institutionsCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-MackayMcGill University
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIce hockeyKinematicsElbowJoint (building)BiomechanicsTrunkWristShot (pellet)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to compare joint angles and spatiotemporal variables between male and female ice hockey players during skating slap shots. Thirty-nine collegiate players (25 men, 14 women) participated. Kinematic data were collected using a Xsens 17-inertial measurement system. Key variables included joint angles for the trunk, upper, and lower extremities, as well as temporal measures for shot execution time, and the backswing, downswing, and follow-through phases. Statistical Parametric Mapping (SPM) was applied to analyse sex-based differences in joint kinematics. Temporal data were compared using two-way ANOVAs. Results indicated that males exhibited longer backswing and downswing phases, contributing to longer overall shot execution times. Males also demonstrated greater trunk flexion and lead shoulder flexion, while females showed more lead shoulder abduction, elbow flexion, and trail wrist extension during the backswing and downswing phases. These findings highlight the influence of anatomical and strength differences on slap shot mechanics. Considering sex-specific biomechanical differences in the development of training regimens and equipment design may enhance performance and development in ice hockey for all.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.910
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports BiomechanicsSame topicSports Dynamics and BiomechanicsFrench-language works237,207