Evaluation of the Canadian Aerobic Fitness Test with 10- to 15-Year-Old Children
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".