Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swimming is a sport that has achieved high levels of demand, which is reflected on training sessions and researches.So, to optimize the displacement in swimmers can optimize the propulsive force.For this, can be used hand paddles and parachutes.The hand paddle enlarge the artificial area of the swimmers hand.The parachutes enlarge the drag on swimmers, so, they have to reorganize the neuromotor recruitment to overcome this increase on external resistance.Thus, during use of hand paddles there is decrease of stroke rate and during use of parachutes there is increase of stroke length, while the opposite occurs in both variables during use of both implements.However, on literature has few studies about coordenatives variables on overload in swimming, therefore, the aim of this study is investigate the influence of hand paddles and parachute on coordination of butterfly and front crawl swims.21 estate level swimmers were the subjects of this study.They were specialized on butterfly swimming or front crawl swimming, all with experience in training with use of hand paddles and parachute.The tests protocol was four maximal-intensity conditions: without equipment, with hand paddles, with parachute, and with both hand paddles and parachute.All swimmers were filmed (60 frames per second, 1/1000 of shutter speed) from a moving sagittal view, with the aid of a trolley pulled by an operator at the same velocity as that of the swimmer.Swimming velocity, stroke rate, stroke length, stroke phase and leg kicking duration and index of coordination for each swim style were analyzed from videos.To according the overload, changed the speed of swimming.The stroke rate decreased with all implements.Stroke length increased only on hand paddles condition.No one stroke phase neither leg kicking were modify, for butterfly and front crawl swimming.The according for the experimental condition the index of coordination of butterfly swimming was modify while the index of coordination of front crawl swimming on overload appears to decrease the lag time of propulsive continuity.The implements use must programmed for training session and periodization.So, many researches are necessary for understanding the longitudinal effects of these implements.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.004 |
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".