MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

ENERGY INTAKE OF TWO NORWEGIAN EXPLORERS ON AN UNSUPPORTED SKI-TREK ACROSS THE ARCTIC OCEAN

2001· article· en· W2026576054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siobhán Kavanagh, M E. Bovill, Peter Frykman, M A. Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticThe arcticAnimal scienceNorwegianCapeSugarOceanographyFood scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess energy intake of two male Arctic exploers (RG, TL) during a 109-d unsupported ski-trek across the Arctic Ocean, from Siberia to Cape Discovery, Canada, we analyzed food diaries recorded by the men during the trek. This 1,914-km journey is the first unsupported expedition to successfully cross the Arctic Ocean. Caloric intakes and macronutrient distributions were assessed from the self-reported food records. The rations consisted mainly of energy dense foods including oats, sugar, nuts, dry milk, vegetable oil, medium-chain triglycerides (MCT) oil, and freeze-dried meals. Lunch provided the majority of energy and was consumed at 50-minute intervals throughout the day. Actual energy intake averaged 5,132 kcals for TL and 5,275 kcals for RG. Macronutrient distribtutions during the trek for both men were similar. While the trend of lower CHO and higher fat intakes are comparable to other expeditions, the CHO levels during this trek were 7% lower than reported by Stroud (1997). Despite this low CHO percentage, the absolute CHO intakes were moderate, averaging 321g/day, allowing the explorers to maintain endurance to successfully complete their journey.Table

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→