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 purpose of this paper is to introduce the Latent Growth Model (LGM) to researchers in exercise and sport science. Although the LGM has several merits over traditional analysis techniques in analyzing change and was first introduced almost 20 years ago, it is still underused in exercise and sport science research. This statistical model can be applied to any repeated measures data, but it is most useful when one has an a priori hypothesis about the patterns of change. The strengths of latent growth modeling include: (a) both individual and group levels of change are estimated, (b) either a linear or a curvilinear trajectory can represent individual change, (c) occasions of measurement need not be equally spaced, (d) the statistical model can account for measurement errors, (e) the model can easily include multiple predictors or correlates of change, and (f) as in general structural equation models, statistical models are flexible and allow one to extend the basic idea in several ways, such as comparing changes between groups and examining the change in multivariate latentfactors. In this paper, the basics and an extension of latent growth modeling are explained, and examples with longitudinal physical performance data are presented, along with detailed analysis procedures and considerations.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it