MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033456013

Relationships Between Key Performance Indicators Across Four Swimming Strokes and by Distances in Competitive Swimmers

2024· other· en· W7033456013 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformance indicatorAnthropometryAthletesStroke (engine)Sprint
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key performance indicators (KPIs) are skill-based metrics, used by coaches and athletes to adjust technique and develop race strategies. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of key performance indicators (KPIs), such as stroke rate (SR;#/s), stroke count (SC;#), stroke length (SL;m) and kick frequency (KF;#/s) on total swim time (s), across four swimming strokes (butterfly, backstroke, breaststroke, freestyle) of the same swim distance, and within a swimming stroke between swim distances (50m and 100 m). Varsity-caliber competitive swimmers (n=12 males; 19yrs1.4) were recruited. Anthropometric measures including height (m), seated height (m), weight (kg), wingspan (m), hand length (m) and leg length (m) were recorded. Shoulder and ankle range of motion (ROM) measurements and a Y-balance test (YBT) were conducted to profile upper and lower limb mobility. Athletes completed four swim sessions; each session consisted of a standardized warm up, 50m kick, 50m pull, 50m swim and 100m swim distances per swimming stroke. Swimming KPIs and total swim time (s) were collected by a portable Triton 2 device (TritonWear, ON, Canada). A GoPro Hero 8 device (GoPro, California, USA) collected underwater video to facilitate calculating KF (#/s). Descriptives were calculated for all variables across all four swimming strokes and two swim distances. Pearson product-moment correlations revealed significant relationships between select anthropometrics and ROM and performance times (p<0.005), suggesting that both anthropometric and ROM measures have the potential to influence swim performance times. A series of repeated-measure ANOVAs with Greenhouse-Geisser corrections revealed significant differences in select KPIs [SR (#/s), SC (#), SL (m) and KF (#/s)] across the four swimming strokes and between 50m and 100m swim distances within a swimming stroke (p<0.05), suggesting that both swimming strokes and swim distances may utilize different KPI related strategies. A multiple regression analyses was conducted to identify the contribution of pull time (s) versus kick time (s) to total swim time (s) within 50m swim distance and each swimming stroke. Percent contributions were calculated and revealed differences by each stroke. 
\nData-driven metrics obtained during swim performances facilitated a better understanding of the relationships between KPIs, anthropometrics, ROM, and YBT measures. Furthermore, metrics provided support to adjust select KPIs relative to an athlete’s anthropometrics. These sport specific skill-based metrics can empower coaches and athletes to use KPIs to optimize athlete potential and target performance goals.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.185 · 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