The Impact of Growth in Height on the Physical Competencies of Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to recognize or control for the impact of physical growth to evaluate changes in childrenâs physical performance as they get older particularly when involved in an exercise or training program. This study examined the effect of growth in height on four physical competency tasks in children. Data were collected twice from 206 children, aged 8 to 11 years at first data collection. These participants completed the Progressive Aerobic Cardiorespiratory Endurance Run [PACER], a timed plank, left- and right-hand grip strength, and had their height and mass measured in consecutive years. Growth in height was used in dimensional analyses to predict the participantsâ expected improvement in their physical competency measures. The expected improvement in PACER, timed plank and left- and right-hand grip strength was compared to actual differences in the childrenâs performance using repeated measures t-tests. Significantly greater improvements than expected were found for left (t(167)=-4.731, p=0.000) and right-hand grip (t(168)=-4.579, p=0.000). Actual performance was significantly less than expected for the timed plank (t(172)=-2.743, p=0.003). No significant differences in actual versus expected performance were found for the PACER (t(164)=-1.023, p=0.154). Although childrenâs growth in height accounted for a proportion of their performance, it was inconsistent suggesting other biologic and non-biologic factors also impact their physical competencies over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".