MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Much Weight Have Senior Kinesiology Students Gained?

2017· article· en· W2619887778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexis A. Neugebauer, Hyun‐Sung An, Jung Min Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBody weightKinesiologyIdeal (ethics)PsychologyMedicineSignificant differenceBody mass indexAnimal sciencePhysical therapyWeight gainMathematicsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several research studies have examined the belief of freshman 15 myth as it is well known that an amount of weight gained during a student’s first year at college in the United States and Canada. However, mixed results have been found that freshmen gain as much as 15 pounds, whereas other suggests minimal weight gain. There is still limited information available to systematically examine the weight gained in Kinesiology/Exercise Science major senior college students. PURPOSE: The present study was to examine the senior college student’s body weight compared to the ideal body weight. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty-two exercise science major students were participated in the study (age = 21.6± .72 yrs; Height = 170.8 ± 12.2 cm; weight = 77.8 ± 14.8 kg; Body mass index = 26.8 ± 5.0 kg·m2; Body Fat% = 19.2 ± 8.2%; ideal body weight = 69.8±14.2 kg) and the ideal body weight was calculated based on using the body fat % obtained by the bio-electrical impedance device. Descriptive for all variables were calculated and Pearson product-moment correlations were calculated to test the association between the actual weight and the ideal body weight. Dependent t-tests were performed to examine the statistically significant difference between the actual weight and the ideal body weight and also examine the ideal body weight differences between the male and female students. RESULTS: The difference between the actual weight and the ideal weight was 5.88 kg for male students and 10.79 kg for female students. A strong correlation was observed between the actual weight and the ideal body weight, r=.832 (p < 0.01) and r=.829 (p < 0.01) for male and female students, respectively. The dependent t-test indicated that there are significant differences between the actual body weight and the ideal body weight for both male (t(133)=9.1, p < 0.01) and female (t(97)=14.49, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This finding demonstrates that even exercise science major students were heavier than their ideal body weight and female students are heavier than male students. Future researchers should focus on the mechanisms of college student’s weight gain to initiate the college level interventions to prevent unhealthy weight gain.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.400 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicPhysical Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207