HEALTH STATUS, EXERCISE HABITS, AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE FEMALE TRIAD IN UNIVERSITY DANCE MAJORS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The general perception is that female athletes involved in aesthetic or weight dependent sports, restrict caloric intake and are thereby not taking in enough calories for the energy they expend. Therefore the purpose of this study was to determine the energy balance (energy intake minus total energy expenditure), occurrence of restrictive eating, and knowledge of the female triad in 23 University of Calgary students (age (20.4 ± 3.0 yr.); weight (59.3 ± 6.6 kg.); height (166.6 ± 5.1 cm.)) enrolled in the Program of Dance over two university semesters. The tools used in this study were the Eating Disorder Inventory-2 (EDI-2) survey, the EDI-2 Symptom Checklist (SC), the Athlete Triad Survey, the Health Status Survey, the 7-day activity analysis, the 3-day nutritional analysis and several anthropometrics. Distribution of calories revealed 14% protein, 61% carbohydrates, and 26% fats, with a daily caloric intake of 1697 ± 492 kcal (819–2814) during the first semester, and 16% protein, 57% carbohydrates, and 28% fats, with a daily caloric intake of 1713 ± 505 (516–2394) during the second semester. Self-reported activity records revealed a total energy expenditure of 3093 ± 578 kcal (2149–4477) during the first semester, and 3156 ± 513 kcal (2187–4336) during the second semester, resulting in a negative energy balance both semesters (−1415 ± 801 kcal; −1463 ± 838 kcal), respectively. In the group 22% reported previous stress fractures, 41% experienced menstrual disturbances, and 22% had practiced some form of restrictive eating at one point in their lifetime. The highest mean scores for EDI-2 were drive for thinness (7.2, 61.9%ile; 6.7, 58.7%ile), perfectionism (6.5, 58.3%ile; 5.9, 55.4%ile), and body dissatisfaction (11.9, 57.5%ile; 12.6, 59.5%ile) for both semesters, respectively. Funding Source: University Research Development Grant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".