Sex-Related Differences in Explosive Actions During Late Childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine sex-related differences in explosive actions during late childhood, while accounting for body size and maturity, and determine the predictive model responsible for performance. Sixty-eight boys (11.0 ± 1.1 years) and 45 girls (11.3 ± 0.9 years) performed a vertical and horizontal jump, 30-m sprint, and change of direction (COD) time trial. After allometric analysis, a common sex scaling factor of body mass was used for vertical (b = 1.02) and horizontal (b = 0.97) power. No significant sex difference in relative leg power was found before and after controlling for maturity status. Gender differences in 10 m, the Zigzag section, and flying 10 m of the COD task were found significant once adjusted for maturity (p ≤ 0.05). However, boys performed better than girls in 20- and 30-m sprint and the COD time trial regardless of maturity status (p ≤ 0.05). Reduced endomorphy in boys was the best predictor of explosive actions (R = 7-22%), whereas female performance was best explained by mass and maturity status (R = 15-19%). Jump power-specific allometric scaling factors need to be determined to account for body size. A training emphasis on sprinting and COD at a younger age in girls compared with boys is recommended because of their earlier onset of puberty and reduced natural ability in these tasks. Somatotype, age, maturity, and body mass should be monitored during the development of youth athletes to better understand explosive performance.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".