Comparability and repeatability of three commonly used methods for measuring endurance capacity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measures of endurance (time to exhaustion) have been used to address a wide range of questions in ecomorphological and physiological research, as well as being used as a proxy for survival and fitness. Swimming, stationary (circular) track running, and treadmill running are all commonly used methods for measuring endurance. Despite the use of these methods across a broad range of taxa, how comparable these methods are to one another, and whether they are biologically relevant, is rarely examined. We used Australian water dragons (Intellagama lesueurii), a species that is morphologically adept at climbing, swimming, and running, to compare these three methods of endurance and examined if there is repeatability within and between trial methods. We found that time to exhaustion was not highly repeatable within a method, suggesting that single measures or a mean time to exhaustion across trials are not appropriate. Furthermore, we compared mean maximal endurance times among the three methods, and found that the two running methods (i.e., stationary track and treadmill) were similar, but swimming was distinctly different, resulting in lower mean maximal endurance times. Finally, an individual's endurance rank was not repeatable across methods, suggesting that the three endurance trial methods are not providing similar information about an individual's performance capacity. Overall, these results highlight the need to carefully match a measure of performance capacity with the study species and the research questions being asked so that the methods being used are behaviorally, ecologically, and physiologically relevant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".