MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Commentaries on Viewpoint: V<scp>o</scp><sub>2peak</sub>is an acceptable estimate of cardiorespiratory fitness but not V<scp>o</scp><sub>2max</sub>

2018· letter· en· W2902029007 on OpenAlexaff
Paulo Henrique Silva Marques de Azevedo, Dharini M. Bhammar, Tony G. Babb, T. Scott Bowen, Klaus K. Witte, Harry B. Rossiter, Julien V. Brugniaux, Ben D. Perry, Ricardo Dantas de Lucas, Tiago Turnes, Jeann L. Sabino‐Carvalho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physiology · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessVO2 maxChemistryAnimal sciencePhysicsBiologyEndocrinologyPhysiologyHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As discussed in the current Viewpoint (2), there have been a number of methodologically different applications of the verification phase for maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o2max) over the past decade, incorporating seemingly arbitrary determination criteria. This is not to say that through observation and experiment, a more exact validation cannot be found. But rather, the immediate focus should be on developing updated protocols for accurately identifying V̇o2max for various populations...

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207