MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414410732 · doi:10.1080/14763141.2025.2557400

Analysing short-track speed skating performance factors

2025· article· en· W4414410732 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jules Claudel, Julien Clément

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Biomechanics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMitacs
KeywordsSpeed skatingCoachingStepwise regressionMatch playRegression analysisLinear regressionElite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-track speed skating is an incredibly precise sport, where even the smallest technical or physiological adjustment can profoundly impact performance, underscoring the importance of its study for achieving success. This study aims to identify short-track speed skating performance factors and quantify their impacts on athletes' performances. Twenty-nine short-track speed skaters (16 males and 13 females), with two different skill levels (National Elite and Junior Elite athletes), participated in this study. Movella IMU Link suits and Python scripts were employed to record and analyse one on-ice high-speed trial per athlete, focusing on lower body kinematics. From an initial pool of 535 tested factors, Pearson's product moment correlations and stepwise multiple linear regression identified seven significantly associated with lap time, with notable differences between sex and skill levels. Results revealed that inter-foot spacing and pelvic height, which are actionable by athletes, could each contribute to a gain of up to 0.51 seconds per lap if improved by 10 cm. For an average lap on a 500 m race, this means a 5.2%-time improvement. This research enhances the understanding of short-track speed skating performances by identifying factors that can improve lap times, offering practical implications for coaching strategies and athlete training programs.

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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSports BiomechanicsSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207