Exercises Responses of 60-69 Years on the Senior Fitness Test in Jordan Compared to US Norms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: It is well established that most body functions are affected by ageing. Regular physical activity reduces the risk of heart diseases, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis and enhance the well-being among elderly. Therefore, this study assessed exercise responses in 60-69 year-olds Jordanian to the Senior Fitness Test in comparison to the US norms. Methods: Sixty eight men (mean ± SD, 67.1 ± 4.6 y) and 54 women (63.3 ± 3.5 y) from local society volunteered for the study. Each person performed six exercise tests of the senior fitness test; 30-second chair stand test; 30-Second arm curl test; Chair sit and reach test; Back scratch test; 8-Foot up and go exercise test and 6-Minute walk test. Results: Low values of 8-Foot up and go exercise test, back scratch test and 6-Minute walk test for women compared to the US norms. Good and comparable values of 30-second chair stand test, 30-Second arm curl test and Chair sit and reach test compared to the US norms. Discussion: The low values of 8-Foot up and go exercise test and back scratch test may be attributed to the fact that these type of exercise are not very common in the daily activity of elderly in Jordan. However, the good results of chair sit and reach exercise test is essential part of their daily physical activity especially during the prayer time, which they have to do five times a day.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".