MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966551850 · doi:10.1080/02640410500432193

Worldwide variation in the performance of children and adolescents: An analysis of 109 studies of the 20-m shuttle run test in 37 countries

2006· review· en· W1966551850 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Olds, Grant R. Tomkinson, L Léger, Georges Cazorla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Multi-stage fitness testTest (biology)PsychologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineBiologyPhysical therapyPhysical fitnessEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is a meta-analysis of 109 reports of the performance of children and adolescents on the 20-m shuttle run test (20-mSRT). The studies were performed in 37 countries and included data on 418,026 children, tested between 1981 and 2003. Results were expressed as running speed (km x h(-1)) at the final completed stage of the 20-mSRT. Raw data were combined with pseudodata using Monte Carlo simulation. The 20-mSRT performances were expressed as z-scores relative to all children of the same age and sex from all countries. An overall "performance index" was derived for each country as the average of the age- and sex-specific z-scores for all children from that country. Factorial analysis of variance was used to compare scores among countries and regions, and between boys and girls of the same age. There was wide and significant (P < 0.0001) global variability in the performance of children. The best performing children were from the Northern European countries Estonia, Iceland, Lithuania, and Finland (0.6 - 0.9 standard deviations above the global average). The worst performing children were from Singapore, Brazil, USA, Italy, Portugal, and Greece (0.4 - 0.9 standard deviations below the global average). There is evidence that performance was negatively related to being overweight, as well as to a country's average temperature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations241
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207