Effect of seasonal wrestling training and unavoidable interventions on selected physiological parameters / by Nick Cipriano. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate, 1) the effect of seasonal wrestling training on aerobic and anaerobic power, physical working capacity (170), resting, maximal and recovery heart rate, 2) to determine the effect of unavoidable interventions in the training program, and 3) to determine whether peak levels were found on the parameters just prior to the College and National wrestling championships. The research design selected was a repetitive bi-weekly testing schedule for physical working capacity (170), recovery heart rate and anaerobic power, and a monthly testing schedule for resting, maximal and recovery heart rate and maximum oxygen uptake. The data were analyzed by a one-way analysis of variance and a Tukey test was \napplied to judge appropriate contrasts. The results indicated that the 18 weeks of wrestling training had a significant (p. < .05) effect on maximum oxygen uptake, resting and recovery heart rate and the heart rate after 12 minutes of submaximal work. There were apparent differences in the other parameters investigated, however, they were not significant. The unavoidable interventions in the training program were the examination period and the Christmas holidays which extended from December sixth to the 18th and December 19th to January third, respectively. The interventions were detrimental to the fitness level of the present sample. The test values obtained immediately following the intervention period were less favourable than the pretraining values for all parameters investigated with the exception of the five minute recovery heart rate following 12 minutes of submaximal work. This finding indicated that the training effect that had occurred prior to the intervention period had totally deteriorated over the intervention period. Peak levels of fitness were achieved just prior to the College and National championships, thus suggestingvthat the wrestlers were not experiencing symptoms of overtraining or had reached peak fitness levels at an earlier date and were now at \na maintainance or detraining state.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".