The Effects of 10 Weeks of Reforestation Work on Body Composition☆
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo document changes in body composition and body mass in male and female tree planters.MethodsHeight, mass, skin-fold thickness, and limb girths were measured in 17 male and 5 female tree planters before and after 10 weeks of work.ResultsSignificant decreases were found in body mass (80.6 ± 10.7 kg vs 76.8 ± 8.5 kg) and body fat (13.3% ± 5.5% vs. 10.4% ± 5.0%) in the men (P < .05). No changes in skin-fold–corrected limb girths were found in the men or women. Initial body mass was significantly (P < .05) correlated with mass loss in men (r2 = .46) and women (r2 = .67). Estimated daily energy consumption was 20680.1 ± 2204.5 kJ for men and 14516.6 ± 2077.3 kJ for women, and estimated daily fat consumption was 194.2 ± 30.1 g for men and 132.3 ± 35.6 g for women.ConclusionsTen weeks of tree planting leads to significant decreases in body mass and body fat in men while maintaining skin-fold–corrected limb girths. To document changes in body composition and body mass in male and female tree planters. Height, mass, skin-fold thickness, and limb girths were measured in 17 male and 5 female tree planters before and after 10 weeks of work. Significant decreases were found in body mass (80.6 ± 10.7 kg vs 76.8 ± 8.5 kg) and body fat (13.3% ± 5.5% vs. 10.4% ± 5.0%) in the men (P < .05). No changes in skin-fold–corrected limb girths were found in the men or women. Initial body mass was significantly (P < .05) correlated with mass loss in men (r2 = .46) and women (r2 = .67). Estimated daily energy consumption was 20680.1 ± 2204.5 kJ for men and 14516.6 ± 2077.3 kJ for women, and estimated daily fat consumption was 194.2 ± 30.1 g for men and 132.3 ± 35.6 g for women. Ten weeks of tree planting leads to significant decreases in body mass and body fat in men while maintaining skin-fold–corrected limb girths.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".