Evaluation of the Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test with 10- to 15-Year-Old Children
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 evaluate the utility of the Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test (CAFT), a field measure of cardiovascular fitness. After providing anthropometric measures, 31 subjects, ages 10 to 15, completed a maximal treadmill test and the CAFT, a 3-stage step test. Multiple regression analyses were conducted where maximal oxygen consumption from the treadmill test was estimated based on the oxygen cost of stepping, age and various combinations of body composition. For the total sample, the best model ( R = 0.79, SEE = 6.7), obtained from the sum of 4 skinfolds, was the body composition estimate. This model was slightly more accurate for males ( R = 0.83, SEE = 6.0) than for females ( R = 0.77, SEE = 7.0). When the regression equation incorporated less time consuming indicators of body composition, the predictive power, albeit lower, was still satisfactory. It appears that the CAFT can be a useful option for measuring cardiovascular fitness for youth, with the decision dependent on the purpose of the test, the testing resources, the setting, and the motivation of the subjects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it