Investigation of responses of age-group swimmers during training / by W. Alan M. Roaf. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to monitor a series of multidisciplinary \nindices associated with swimming performance in age-group \nswimmers throughout a period of serious training. Three female \nand three male members of the Thunder Bay Thunderbolts Swim Club, \nThunder Bay, Ontario were the subjects of this nine week investigation \nThe test protocol measured 1) height, 2) weight, 3) skinfold measurements, \n4) resting heart rate, 5) resting blood pressures, 6) hemoglobin, \n7) hematocrit, and 8) M.C.H.C. A sociological scale, a psychological \ninventory, and a stress index were included. Graphical analyses were \nused. Changes had to be visually obvious to be recognized. The \nresults showed that 1) variations were unique to the individual \nsubjects, 2) individual responses were independent of the training \nload, 3) intra-subject parameters varied within ranges unique to each \nindividual, 4) individual, rather than group assessments, may be \nnecessary, 5) longitudinal testing data is necessary , 6) testing \nprotocols unique to an individual athlete might be specified, and \n7) ranges of tolerance rather than finite data points may more \naccurately measure an athlete's adaptation to a state of training.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".