Does the Selected Segment Within a Two-Legged Hopping Trial Alter Leg Stiffness and Kinetic Performance Values and Their Variability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two-legged hopping is a well-established model for assessing leg stiffness; however, in existing studies, it is unclear whether the trial segment selection affects the results. This study aimed to assess if the selected hopping segment alters the value and individual variability (%CVind) of leg stiffness and kinetic performance metrics. Elite women athletes (42, volleyball, basketball, handball) and 14 non-athletic women performed barefoot two-legged hopping (130 bpm) on a force-plate (Kistler, 9286AA, sampling at 1000 Hz). Leg stiffness was estimated from the Fz registration (resonant frequency method). Four cumulative range segments (1–10, 1–20, 1–30, and 1–40 hops) and three segments of 10-hop subranges (11–20, 21–30, and 31–40) were analyzed (repeated measures one-way Anova, p ≤ 0.05, SPSS v30.0). The hopping segment did not significantly alter the leg stiffness value (segment average 30.6 to 31.2 kN/m) or its %CVind (segment average ≈ 3%). The kinetic performance metrics depicted a solid foundation for the extracted leg stiffness value, with %CVind not exceeding 6.2%. The results indicate a data collection of just 15 hops, in continuance reduced to a 10 hops segment (after excluding the first five to avoid neuromuscular adaptation) as a robust reference choice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".