MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346381046 · doi:10.1123/pes.2016-0028

Exercise and Pediatric Brain Development: A Call to Action

2016· review· en· W2346381046 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

VenuePediatric Exercise Science · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfant Development and Preterm Care
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)PsychologyCognitionAction (physics)Argument (complex analysis)Cognitive psychologyChild developmentDevelopmental psychologyMedicineNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exercise has long been reputed to have beneficial effects on cognitive processes and emotional stability, with obvious applications to lifespan developmental issues in mental health. Over the last 20 years, animal studies have provided potential mechanisms for this link in neurophysiological terms. Only a very small number of studies have applied this model to well-controlled child and adolescent studies of psychological development, with such studies necessarily requiring collaboration across the fields of exercise science and developmental psychology. In this paper, I outline why the field is now well positioned to increase this effort. Core to this argument is an outline of historical reasons for a (somewhat still active) resistance to this integrative perspective within developmental psychology and a brief synopsis of the countering evidence, followed by a summary of how advances in electrophysiology now make such studies highly accessible and reasonable in terms of cost and convenience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.299 · 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