Nature versus Nurture in Determining Athletic Ability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of the truism that both nature and nurture determine human athletic ability. The major thesis developed is that environmental effects work through the process of growth and development and interact with an individual's genetic background to produce a specific adult phenotype, i.e. an athletic or nonathletic phenotype. On the nature side (genetics), a brief historical review is provided with emphasis on several areas that are likely to command future attention including the rise of genome-wide association as a mapping strategy, the problem of false positives using association approaches, as well as the relatively unknown effects of gene-gene interaction(epistasis), gene-environment interaction, and genome structure on complex trait variance. On the nurture side (environment), common environmental effects such as training-level and sports nutrition are largely ignored in favor of developmental environmental effects that are channeled through growth and development processes. Developmental effects are difficult to distinguish from genetic effects as phenotypic plasticity in response to early life environmental perturbation can produce lasting effects into adulthood. In this regard, the fetal programming (FP) hypothesis is reviewed in some detail as FP provides an excellent example of how developmental effects work and also interact with genetics. In general, FP has well-documented effects on adult body composition and the risk for adult chronic disease, but there is emerging evidence that FP affects human athletic performance as well.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".