MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132919218

Volume, intensity and timing of muscle power potentiation are variable

2011· article· en· W7132919218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. G Behm, A. Chaouachi, A Abed, N Poulos, Eric J. Drinkwater

Bibliographic record

VenueCharles Sturt University Research Output (CRO) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJumpIntensity (physics)Variable (mathematics)Long-term potentiationPower (physics)InferenceTime to peak
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differences in peak times were all trivial or small (i.e. d<0.50), though all comparisons with peak force (6.57 min±5.33) were large (d>0.80), which is to say the peak force reached its peak substantially later than the other dependent variables. In assessing just the peak data, magnitude-based inference revealed both the 5x70 and 3x85 protocol elicited changes that exceed 75% likelihood of exceeding the smallest worthwhile change (SWC) for peak power (89% and 80% likely respectively) and velocity (77% and 87% likely respectively). The 10x70 also had a substantial likelihood of potentiating peak velocity above the SWC (75% likely). The 5x70 protocol had an 80% likelihood of exceeding the SWC in mean power. Discussion Most measures peaked at one-, three-, or five-minutes though this peak was often not greater than the smallest worthwhile change. There was sufficient inconsistency in the timing of the peak that there was no statistically significant potentiation in the repeated measures ANOVA. Magnitude-based inferences revealed that while no protocol had a substantial likelihood of potentiating the peak vertical jump above the SWC, the 5x70 protocol had the most consistent substantial likelihood (i.e. >75%) of increasing the peak of most dependent variables, in particular power as well as peak velocity. We were unable to consistently predict if these peaks occurred at 1-, 3, or 5 minutes post-stimulation though declines after 5 min seems probable.Volume, intensity and timing of muscle power potentiation are variable Behm, D.G.1, Chaouachi, A.2, Abed, M.F.2, Poulos, N.3, Drinkwater, E.J.4 1: Newfoundland, Canada, 2: Tunis Tunisia, 3. Aspire, Qatar, 4. Bathurst Australia Introduction Whereas muscle potentiation is consistently demonstrated with evoked contractile properties, the potentiation of functional and physiological measures is more inconsistent. The objective of the study was to compare a variety of conditioning stimuli volumes and intensities over a 15-minute

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCharles Sturt University Research Output (CRO)Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207