MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2687960192 · doi:10.1504/ijise.2017.085218

Anthropometric study of Omani female population age between 15-57 years in 2014

2017· article· en· W2687960192 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Khadem, Md. Anisul Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial and Systems Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropometryUnderweightOverweightPercentileDemographyObesityMedicinePopulationEnvironmental healthStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to describe the anthropometrics of Omani women, which can be considered as a representative of the Arabian Gulf region. This study was carried out among Omani women, aged 15-57 years, selected by convenience sampling method from three different locations such as the public university, police training academy, and high school. A total of 303 Omani women were measured in this study aiming for an inaugural comprehensive anthropometric study of women in Oman and the Arabian Gulf region. Thirty-seven dimensions and five indices were statistically analysed, including the mean, standard deviation, range, standard error of mean, coefficient of variance, correlation coefficients, and percentiles. The results showed that the mean of stature of Omani women is 157.08 cm and body weight is 71.38 kg. Omani women are approximately 10.5 cm shorter than Omani men. Compared with North American and European women, Omani women are shorter. It was found that 6% of subjects were underweight, 28% were overweight, and 29.6% were obese. The results of this study have significant value for designing ergonomic products and workstations, and other healthcare related issues which until now has not been available in the literature.

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)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial and Systems EngineeringSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207