MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547477121 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2016.1243800

The dose–response relationship between resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: are there really still any doubts?

2016· letter· en· W2547477121 on OpenAlexaff
Brad J. Schöenfeld, Dan Ogborn, JAMES KRIEGER

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2016
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsTotal (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance trainingMuscle hypertrophyResistance (ecology)Training (meteorology)Computer sciencePsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyCardiologyBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We read with interest the letter to the editor entitled “Is it possible to reach reliable conclusions doing meta-analyses with resistance training studies?” (Arruda et al., 2016). We thank the jour...

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207