Validation of Adult Omni Perceived Exertion Scales for Elliptical Ergometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation examined the validity of newly developed Adult OMNI Elliptical Ergometer Ratings of Perceived Exertion Scales. 60 men and women performed a graded exercise test on an elliptical ergometer. Oxygen consumption (VO2), heart rate (HR), and ratings of perceived exertion were recorded at each stage from the Borg 15 Category scale and two different OMNI scales. One scale employed an elliptical ergometer format of the OMNI Picture System of Perceived Exertion. The second scale modified verbal, numerical, and pictorial descriptors at the low end of the response range. Concurrent and construct validity were established by the positive relation between ratings of perceived exertion from each OMNI scale with VO2, HR, and Borg scale ratings of perceived exertion (men, r = .94-.97; women, r = .93-.98). Validity was established for both OMNI scales, indicating either metric can be used to estimate ratings of perceived exertion during partial weight-bearing exercise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".