MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133576012 · doi:10.12678/1089-313x.031521g

Body Composition Adaptations Throughout an Elite Circus Student-Artist Training Season

2021· article· en· W3133576012 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Decker, Patrice Aubertin, Dean Kriellaars

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dance Medicine & Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDiversity and Impact of Dance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioelectrical impedance analysisFat massComposition (language)Muscle massAnimal scienceMedicineBody mass indexPopulationBody fat percentageDemographyInternal medicineBiologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to perform a longitudinal assessment of body composition of circus student-artists in an elite 3-year college training program. Ninety-two student-artists participated (age = 20.39 ± 2.42 years; height = 170.01 ± 8.01 cm; mass = 66.48 ± 11.07 kg; 36% female and 64% male), representing 92% of the student population. Body composi- tion was assessed using multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance at four strategic time points throughout the training year to evaluate changes over the two semesters (September to December and January to April) and winter vacation (December to January). Workloads were subjectively assessed using ratings of perceived exer- tion (RPE). Averaged over the academic terms, fat mass was 11.5 ± 4.8%, muscle mass was 50.2 ± 3.4%, and body mass index was 22.9 ± 2.2. Males and females differed significantly across all absolute and relative body composition variables. Muscle mass increased (semester one, +1.0%, p < 0.001; semester two, +0.4%, p < 0.05) while fat mass decreased during each semester (semester one, -1.6%, p < 0.001; semester two, -0.6%, p < 0.05) co-varying with changes in RPE (semester one, +2.3, p < 0.05; semester two, +1.7, p < 0.05). During the winter vacation period, percent fat mass increased (males, +1.0%; females, +2.0%) and percent muscle mass decreased (males, -0.6%; females, -0.9%). Discipline-specific differences in body composition were also detected, and significant differences were observed between student-artists grouped by years in school. Over the training year, there was a positive adaptation for muscle and fat mass despite the negative adaptation experienced during the winter vacation period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.335 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dance Medicine & ScienceSame topicDiversity and Impact of DanceFrench-language works237,207