Nível de flexibilidade obtida pelo teste de sentar e alcançar a partir de estudo realizado na Grande São Paulo
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 objective of this study was to examine the level of flexibility in men and women of different ages by the sit-and-reach test and to classify them according to the Canadian Standardized Test of Fitness (CSTF). The results were used to elaborate a new table that reflects the population studied. The sample consisted of 16,405 physically active and inactive subjects who were divided according to age: 15 to 19 (n = 954), 20 to 29 (n = 2916), 30 to 39 (n = 2161), 40 to 49 (n = 2333), 50 to 59 (n = 2739), 60 to 69 (n = 3195), and > 70 years (n = 2107). Percentiles were calculated using the original test scores and the 20th, 40th, 60th and 80th percentiles were used as cut-offs for classification as poor, below the average, average, above the average and excellent, respectively. According to the CSTF classification, the age groups from 15 to 39 years were classified as poor, with mean flexibility ranging from 24.805±9.684 to 26.130± 10.111 cm in women and from 21.480±9.905 to 22.848±9.648 cm in men. In the 40- to 69-year age groups, mean flexibility ranged from 22.768±9.627 to 25.396±9.547 in women and from 16.396±10.136 to 19.935±9.192 cm in men and was classified as below the average. Although most of the subjects performed regular exercise, the mean flexibility level observed did not correspond to the average suggested by the CSTF, demonstrating the importance of elaborating national reference tables and of establishing new normative values such as the table proposed in this study.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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