MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066267824 · doi:10.1139/h00-028

Canadian Musculoskeletal Fitness Norms

2000· article· en· W2066267824 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nancy Payne, Norman Gledhill, Peter T. Katzmarzyk, Veronica Jamnik, Peter J. Keir

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical fitnessTrunkVertical jumpGrip strengthCurl (programming language)DemographyPhysical therapyPopulationBody mass indexNormativeJumpMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychologyComputer scienceBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this report is to provide representative norms for measurements of musculoskeletal fitness (partial curl-ups, vertical jump, and leg power) for which Canadian norms are not currently available. Partial curl-ups, vertical jump, trunk flexion (sit and reach), grip strength, muscular endurance (push-ups), body mass index, and subcutaneous adiposity (sum of five skinfolds) were assessed, and leg power was calculated in 571 self-reportedly healthy participants (312 females and 259 males) aged 15-69 yr. The representativeness of the sample was confirmed by statistically comparing the fitness characteristics of the participants in the present study to those in the Canada Fitness Survey of 1981 and the Campbell's Survey of 1988. Normative data for partial curl-ups, vertical jump, and leg power were generated for males and females in six age groups (15-19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69) for use in fitness appraisal protocols for the Canadian population.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations43
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207