MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743812199

Factors affecting athletic ability: The 2D:4D ratio analyzed

2014· article· en· W2743812199 on OpenAlexaff
A Kanmacher, G. J. Young, Pamela J. Bryden

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSexual Differentiation and Disorders
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesDigit ratioPsychologyRecreationBasketballTraitDemographyTestosterone (patch)Physical therapyMedicineBiologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The second to fourth digit ratio is considered a sexually dimorphic trait with lower finger ratios being linked to increased levels of masculinity (Griffin, Kennedy, Jones, & Barber, 2012). Therefore, a reason for researching the ratio is its probable link to genetic foetal testosterone levels (Manning, et al., 2014). Males and females with lower 2D:4D ratios have been shown to display greater amounts of physical fitness and athletic ability (Hönekopp, Manning, & Müller, 2006; Bailey, & Hurd, 2005). In the current research study we set out to analyze how genetics, measuring the 2D:4D ratio, may influence athletic ability in University students (expert, recreational and non-athletes). We hypothesized that much like results found specifically by Giffin et al. in 2012 that expert level athletes would display the smallest 2D:4D ratios in comparison to recreational and non-athletes. We also hypothesized that males would display a smaller ratio than females given increased levels of foetal testosterone levels. 87 young adults from Wilfrid Laurier University were administered two questionnaires; one being the Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire, and another being the deliberate practice questionnaire. The latter was developed specifically for this study to determine the level of athletic expertise through deliberate practice (Ericsson, 2006). Lastly, 2D:4D measurements were taken from the preferred hand of each participant directly using a vernier caliper. Our results showed that not considering gender, expert level athletes had significantly smaller 2D:4D ratios than recreational athletes and non-athletes. Only at the recreational level were there significant differences between genders. A negative correlation existed between 2D:4D ratios between all athlete groups for males. In contrast, significant differences were only found in the expert level athlete group among females, while no significant differences were found between non-athletes and recreational level athletes.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSexual Differentiation and DisordersFrench-language works237,207