MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463918993 · doi:10.1123/jpah.2015-0712

Energy Expenditure for 70 Activities in Children and Adolescents

2016· article· en· W2463918993 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffer Eidi Sasaki, Cheryl A. Howe, Dinesh John, Amanda Hickey, Jeremy A. Steeves, Scott A. Conger, Kate Lyden, Sarah Kozey Keadle, Sarah Burkart, Sofiya Alhassan, David R. Bassett, Patty S. Freedson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physical Activity and Health · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences North
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCompendiumEnergy expenditurePhysical activityBasal metabolic rateEnergy metabolismMetabolic equivalentPhysical activity levelPsychologyGerontologyDemographyAnimal scienceMedicinePhysical therapyGeographyBiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Thirty-five percent of the activities assigned MET values in the Compendium of Energy Expenditures for Youth were obtained from direct measurement of energy expenditure (EE). The aim of this study was to provide directly measured EE for several different activities in youth. METHODS: Resting metabolic rate (RMR) of 178 youths (80 females, 98 males) was first measured. Participants then performed structured activity bouts while wearing a portable metabolic system to directly measure EE. Steady-state oxygen consumption data were used to compute activity METstandard (activity VO2/3.5) and METmeasured (activity VO2/measured RMR) for the different activities. RESULTS: Rates of EE were measured for 70 different activities and ranged from 1.9 to 12.0 METstandard and 1.5 to 10.0 METmeasured. CONCLUSION: This study provides directly measured energy cost values for 70 activities in children and adolescents. It contributes empirical data to support the expansion of the Compendium of Energy Expenditures for Youth.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physical Activity and HealthSame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207