Influence of game and quarter results on external peak demands during games in under-18 years, male basketball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To quantify and compare the external peak demands (PD) encountered according to game result (win vs. loss), quarter result (win vs. tie vs. loss), and quarter point difference (± difference in score) in under-18 years (U18), male basketball players. Thirteen basketball players had external load variables monitored across 9 games using local positioning system technology, including distance covered, distance covered in different intensity zones, accelerations, decelerations, and PlayerLoad™. PD were calculated across 30-s, 1-min, and 5-min time windows for each variable. Linear mixed models were used to compare PD for each variable according to game result (win vs. loss), quarter result (win vs tie vs loss), and quarter point difference (high vs. low). External PD were comparable between games that were won and lost for all variables and between quarters that were won and lost for most variables (p > 0.05, trivial-small effects). In contrast, players produced higher (p < 0.05, small effects) 1-min high-speed running distance and 5-min PlayerLoadTM in quarters that were won compared to quarters that were lost. Additionally, high quarter point differences (7.51 ± 3.75 points) elicited greater (p < 0.05, small effects) external PD (30-s PlayerLoadTM, 30-s and 5-min decelerations, and 1-min and 5-min high-speed running distance) than low quarter point differences (-2.47 ± 2.67 points). External PD remain consistent (trivial-small effects) regardless of game result, quarter result, and quarter point difference in U18, male basketball players. Accordingly, external PD attained during games may not be a key indicator of team success.
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 | 0.000 | 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".