MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908534445 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2018-0675

Do stair climbing exercise “snacks” improve cardiorespiratory fitness?

2019· article· en· W2908534445 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessStair climbingClimbingVO2 maxPhysical therapyMedicinePhysical fitnessHeart ratePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicineBlood pressureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the effect of stair climbing exercise “snacks” on peak oxygen uptake. Sedentary young adults were randomly assigned to perform 3 bouts/day of vigorously ascending a 3-flight stairwell (60 steps), separated by 1–4 h of recovery, 3 days/week for 6 weeks, or a nontraining control group (n = 12 each). Peak oxygen uptake was higher in the climbers after the intervention (P = 0.003), suggesting that stair climbing “snacks” are effective in improving cardiorespiratory fitness, although the absolute increase was modest.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.229 · 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