Gender Comparisons of Dynamic Restraint and Motor Skill in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in neuromuscular dynamic restraint between high-skilled and low-skilled prepubescent girls and boys. To determine the contribution of sport experience and physical characteristics to motor skill. SUBJECTS: Nineteen girls and 17 boys (8.89-9.40 y) participated. INTERVENTION: Isometric hamstring and quadriceps muscle strength was assessed. Subjects performed 3 landing trials for measurement of preparatory EMG and vertical leg stiffness. Motor skill was assessed through analysis of 12 fundamental tasks. Sport experience was reported as hours per week and total years in organized and nonorganized activity. OUTCOME MEASURES: Dynamic restraint variables of isometric strength, preparatory EMG activity, and vertical leg stiffness were measured between groups. The contributions of time in sport, type of sport, and physical characteristics on skill were analyzed. RESULTS: No significant gender or skill differences were found in quadriceps strength (P = 0.73), hamstring strength (P = 0.96), hamstring-to-quadriceps ratio (P = 0.71), or vertical leg stiffness (P = 0.38). Low-skilled children exhibited significantly greater (47.8%) preparatory hamstring-quadriceps coactivation than high-skilled subjects (P = 0.03). Participation in organized and nonorganized sport accounted for 29% of the variance in motor skill. CONCLUSIONS: Neuromuscular differences between genders were not observed, but dynamic restraint EMG measures differed between skill levels. The factors predisposing females to noncontact injuries may develop prepuberty to postpuberty from a combination of variables. Greater coactivation in the low-skilled group appears consistent with immature feedforward neuromuscular control strategies. These unrefined motor skills are less economical, may compromise dynamic restraint, and appear partially determined by sport experience.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".