Discriminant analysis of anthropometric and biomotor variables among elite adolescent female athletes in four sports
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify anthropometric and biomotor variables that discriminated among groups of elite adolescent female athletes aged 14.3 +/- 1.3 years (mean +/- s) from four different sports (tennis, n = 15; swimming, n = 23; figure skating, n = 46; volleyball, n = 16). The anthropometric variables included body mass, height, bi-epicondylar breadth of the distal extremity of the humerus and femur, maximal girth of the calf and biceps and the sum of five adipose skinfolds. The biomotor variables were maximal aerobic power, muscular endurance and flexibility of the trunk. Discriminant analysis revealed three significant functions (P < 0. 05). The first discriminant function primarily represented differences between figure skaters and all other groups of athletes. The other two underlined anthropometric and biomotor differences between swimmers and volleyball players and between tennis players and swimmers, respectively. After validation, the analysis showed that 88% of the athletes were correctly classified in their respective sports. Our model confirms that elite adolescent female athletes show physical and biomotor differences that clearly distinguish them according to their particular sport.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it