Normative-referenced percentile values for physical fitness among Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study developed age- and sex-specific normative-referenced percentile values for five physical fitness tests across a wide age range of Canadians, using a nationally representative sample. DATA AND METHODS: The data are from 5,188 Canadians (50.1% female) and were collected as part of cycle 5 of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (2016 to 2017). RESULTS: Males had slightly better cardiorespiratory fitness and substantially better grip strength, jumping height and jumping power scores than females, whereas females had better sit-and-reach flexibility. Among females, there were pronounced increases in jumping height (P50: 25%) and jumping power (P50: 58%) between ages 8 and 13, and in grip strength (P50: 193%) between ages 6 and 19. Performance gradually declined with age, beginning in adolescence for jumping ability and at approximately age 35 for grip strength. Among males, there were pronounced increases in jumping height (P50: 69%) and jumping power (P50: 233%) between ages 8 and 20, and in grip strength (P50: 365%) between ages 6 and 20. Performance gradually declined with age, beginning immediately after adolescence for jumping ability and at approximately age 30 for grip strength. Sit-and-reach flexibility remained relatively stable with age in both sexes. Cardiorespiratory fitness scores in both sexes declined steadily with age beginning (generally) at age 8, with a larger decline evident in females until age 18. DISCUSSION: These normative-referenced values for physical fitness could be useful for screening in public health and clinical practice.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".