MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

EFFECT OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ON AGE OF PEAK HEIGHT VELOCITY AND AGE OF MENARCHE

2001· article· en· W2086033843 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert A. Faulkner, Robert L. Mirwald, D. A. Bailey, Adam Baxter‐Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMenarcheDemographyPhysical activityLongitudinal studyMedicineAnalysis of varianceBone ageAge groupsPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of physical activity, during the growing years, on biological maturity is of considerable interest in pediatric exercise science. In this study, we compared the age of peak height velocity (PHV), age of menarche (AM), and the variation between PHV and AM among 3 categories of physical activity (PA) groups. Data were from the Saskatchewan Bone Mineral Accrual (Longitudinal) Study. Subjects' height were measured semi-annually from 1991–96. Longitudinal data covering the complete adolescent growth period were obtained in 79 girls. PHV was determined from whole-year velocity values, and a cubic spline fit was applied to the whole-year velocities for each subject. AM and PA were determined prospectively (via questionnaire) given at each measurement occasion. Subjects were classified into 3 PA categories based on their cumulative physical activity scores over the 7 years of the study. Results of a oneway ANOVA showed no differences in the dependent variables among the PA groups; thus physical activity during the growing years did not affect the onset of maturity indicators in this sample of girls.Table

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→