Energy Availability of Female Varsity Volleyball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female athletes should aim to achieve energy balance to maintain health and have a high performance output. The purpose of this study was to investigate energy availability (EA) among members of a medium-size Canadian Interuniversity Sport women's volleyball team and to describe exercise energy expenditure (ExEE) during practices, game warm-ups, and games. Total daily energy expenditure was assessed over 7 d using the Bodymedia Sensewear Mini armband, while energy intake (EI) was measured with dietary food logs. Body composition was assessed using air-displacement plethysmography (Bod Pod). Energy availability was calculated using the equation EA = (EI(kcal) - ExEE(kcal))/kg fat-free mass (FFM). Participants consumed 3,435 (±1,172) kcal/day and expended 3479 (± 604) kcal/day. Mean EA was 42.5 kcal·kg FFM(-1) d(-1) across all 7 d, and 2 participants fell below the 30-kcal·kg FFM(-1)·d(-1) threshold. Furthermore, participants expended 511 (± 216), 402 (± 50), and 848 (± 155) kcal during practices, game warm-ups, and games, respectively. Overall, the participants were relatively weight stable and should be encouraged to continue fueling their exercise and high ExEE needs with appropriate nutritional strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".