MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318840374 · doi:10.1519/jsc.0000000000001163

The FORCE Fitness Profile—Adding a Measure of Health-Related Fitness to the Canadian Armed Forces Operational Fitness Evaluation

2015· article· en· W2318840374 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patrick Gagnon, Michaël Spivock, Tara Reilly, Paige Mattie, Barry Stockbrugger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOccupational Health and Performance
Canadian institutionsCanadian Armed Forces
FundersCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Physical fitnessComputer scienceOperations researchEngineeringMedicinePhysical therapyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2013, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) implemented the Fitness for Operational Requirements of Canadian Armed Forces Employment (FORCE), a field expedient fitness test designed to predict the physical requirements of completing common military tasks. Given that attaining this minimal physical fitness standard may not represent a challenge to some personnel, a fitness incentive program was requested by the chain of command to recognize and reward fitness over and above the minimal standard. At the same time, it was determined that the CAF would benefit from a measure of general health-related fitness, in addition to this measure of operational fitness. The resulting incentive program structure is based on gender and 8 age categories. The results on the 4 elements of the FORCE evaluation were converted to a point scale from which normative scores were derived, where the median score corresponds to the bronze level, and silver, gold, and platinum correspond to a score which is 1, 2, and 3 SDs above this median, respectively. A suite of rewards including merit board point toward promotions and recognition on the uniform and material rewards was developed. A separate group rewards program was also tabled, to recognize achievements in fitness at the unit level. For general fitness, oxygen capacity was derived from FORCE evaluation results and combined with a measure of abdominal circumference. Fitness categories were determined based on relative risks of mortality and morbidity for each age and gender group. Pilot testing of this entire program was performed with 624 participants to assess participants' reactions to the enhanced test, and also to verify logistical aspects of the electronic data capture, calculation, and transfer system. The newly dubbed fitness profile program was subsequently approved by the senior leadership of the CAF and is scheduled to begin a phased implementation in June 2015.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Strength and Conditioning ResearchSame topicOccupational Health and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207