MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013325397 · doi:10.1139/h01-013

Musculoskeletal Fitness and Health

2001· review· en· W2013325397 on OpenAlexaff
Darren E. R. Warburton, Norman Gledhill, Arthur Quinney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical strengthFlexibility (engineering)MedicinePhysical therapyMusculoskeletal injuryQuality of life (healthcare)Physical fitnessPhysical medicine and rehabilitationGerontologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose is to examine the relationship between musculoskeletal fitness and health status. Muscular strength is positively associated with independence and overall quality of life, and negatively associated with morbidity and potentially premature mortality. Muscular endurance is positively related to overall quality of life. Elevated muscular endurance may reduce the incidence of falling and its associated injuries. Muscular power is predictive of functional capacity, resultant disability, and potentially premature mortality. Flexibility is positively associated with mobility and independence. Women and the aged may be susceptible to musculoskeletal impairments leading to reduced health status and thus may represent primary target groups for intervention programs. High levels of musculoskeletal fitness are associated with positive health status, and low levels of musculoskeletal fitness are associated with lower health status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations201
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207