MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2338422536 · doi:10.14288/1.0077235

Anthropometric and maturational assessment of female gymnasts from varying performance levels

2010· article· en· W2338422536 on OpenAlexaffabout
Katherine Susan Gacuk Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropometryPsychologySomatotypesDevelopmental psychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sixty-nine Canadian female gymnasts ages 11.5 to 18.0 years, from varying ability levels (National Elite = Group 1, Pre-National Elite = Group 2, Competitive = Group 3, Recreational = Group 4), were studied to determine relationships between performance and maturity, and between performance and anthropometric characteristics. It was hypothesized that there would be significant maturational and anthropometric differences among the ability groups. Skeletal age in reference to chronological age differences, among the ability groups, were assessed using analysis of variance, while differences in the incidence of menarche were assessed using chi-square analysis. Anthropometric differences were assessed using multivariate and univariate analysis of covariance, with chronological age as the covariate. At a level of significance of p < .01, and using preplanned orthogonal contrasts of Group 1+2+3 vs Group 4, Group 1+2 vs Group 3, and Group 1 vs Group 2, both of the maturational and all five of the anthropometric hypotheses were partially supported, with the following significant differences noted: Highly skilled gymnasts, in comparison to lesser skilled gymnasts (Group 1+2+3 vs Group 4, and Group 1+2 vs Group 3), were maturationally delayed both skeletally and menarcheally. Anthropometrically, they were shorter in trunk length; smaller in triceps, suprailiac, abdominal, front thigh, and medial calf skinfolds; smaller in proportional fat mass; and larger in proportional muscle mass. In addition, highly skilled gymnasts (Group 1 + 2 + 3), in comparison to recreational gymnasts (Group 4), were smaller in bi-epicondylar femur width, thigh girth, and subscapular skinfold. As well, elite gymnasts (Group 1 + 2), in comparison to lesser skilled competitive gymnasts (Group 3), were smaller in sitting height and larger in proportional skeletal mass. National elite gymnasts (Group 1), in comparison to pre-national elite gymnasts (Group 2), were not maturationally different, skeletally or menarcheally. Anthropometrically, they were shorter in trunk length, longer in thigh length, and smaller in anterior-posterior chest depth. The significant maturational differences noted among the ability groups were considered to be related to gymnastic performance, with higher skilled gymnasts being developmentally less mature than lesser skilled gymnasts. The significant anthropometric differences noted among the ability groups were considered to be related to gymnastic performance. More specifically, these differences were considered to be of biomechanical importance, and reflections of differences in activity level. As well, it was suggested that these anthropometric differences were associated with maturational differences. The results of the maturational and anthropometric assessments indicated that there may be a relationship between gymnastic performance and maturity, and between gymnastic performance and anthropometric characteristics. It was proposed that further analysis of the anthropometric parameters, with respect to proportional assessment, would be necessary before anthropometric characteristics would closely reflect maturational differences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicSports Performance and Training→French-language works237,207→