Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the relationship between race times and age, in 1-year intervals, by using the world single age records, from 5 km to marathon running (i. e., 5 km, 4 miles, 8, 10, 12, 15 km, 10 miles, 20 km, half-marathon, 25 km, 30 km, and marathon). For each race, a regression model was fitted. Effects of sex, alone and in interaction with age, and the effect of country of origin on performance were examined in a multi-variable model. The relationship between age and race time was modeled through a 4th order-polynomial function. Women achieved their best half-marathon and marathon race time, respectively, 1 year and 3 years earlier in life than men. On the contrary, in the other races, the best women performances were achieved later in life than men (i.e., 4 miles and 30 km: 2 years later, 8 km: 3 years later, 15-20-25 km: 1 year later, 10 miles: 4 years) or at the same age (i.e., 5, 10, 12 km). Moreover, age of peak performance did not change monotonically with the distance of race. For all races, except 12 km, sex differences had an absolute maximum at old ages and a relative maximum near the age of peak performance. From 8 km onward, estimated sex differences were increasing with increasing race distance. Regarding country, runners from Canada were slower than runners from the United States of America in 5 km by 00:10:05 h:min:s (<i>p</i> < 0.001) and in half-marathon by 00:18:43 h:min:s (<i>p</i> < 0.01). On the contrary, in marathon, they were 00:18:43 h:min faster (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Moreover, in 10 miles, runners from Great Britain were 00:02:53 h:min:s faster (<i>p</i> < 0.05) than runners from the United States of America. In summary, differences seem to exist in the age of peak performance between women and men and for nearly all distances sex differences showed an absolute maximum at old ages and relative maximum near the age of peak performance. Thus, these findings highlight the need for sex-specific training programs, especially near the age of peak performance and for elder runners.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".