MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159840784 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.1120

Simple method for developing percentile growth curves for height and weight

2001· article· en· W2159840784 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicWilliams Syndrome Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of the Fraser ValleySunny Hill Health Centre for ChildrenSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercentileSimple (philosophy)Growth curve (statistics)MathematicsGrowth modelStatisticsMathematical economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper demonstrates the ease of use of method I by Preece and Baine ([1978] Ann Hum Biol 5:1-24) in generating smoothed growth curves for both height and weight. Using the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) growth curve data, smoothed curves were developed and compared to those produced using the least-squares-cubic-spline method. Based on the lower sum of squares and better fit of shape as indicated by residual examination, it was concluded that the method I curve fitting procedure by Preece and Baine ([1978] Ann Hum Biol 5:1-24) fit centile growth curves for height and weight in 2-18-year-old male and female children as well as, if not better than, the least-squares-cubic-spline method used in developing the 1979 NCHS growth curves. Further, as this paper demonstrates, smoothed curves can be generated on a desktop computer using readily available software (the SOLVER function within Microsoft EXCEL).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.405
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.360 · 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