MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137924135 · doi:10.9741/2766-2187.1013

Is the ACSM and FRIEND Metabolic Equations Valid for Assessing Cardiorespiratory Fitness Among 18-34 Aged Men? : Preliminary Results

2021· article· en· W3137924135 on OpenAlexafffund
Marc-Olivier Dugas, Laurie Simard, Tommy Chevrette, Martin Lavallière

Bibliographic record

VenueTopics in Exercise Science and Kinesiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessExercise prescriptionSports medicineTreadmillMedicineMetabolic equivalentPhysical therapyMedical prescriptionPhysical fitnessTest (biology)Physical activityGerontologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Topics in Exercise Science and Kinesiology Volume 2: Issue 1, Article 2, 2021. Metabolic equations, such as ACSM and FRIEND, are used worldwide to indirectly measure the VO2max in adults, but lack of accuracy seems to occur. 30 men of 18-34 years old performed a maximal incremental test on a treadmill during which direct VO2max measurements was taken and then have been compared to ACSM and FRIEND metabolic equations. Point of application #1: Better evaluation and exercise prescription among athletic populations. Point of application #2: Act in prevention among sedentary and symptomatic populations. Point of application #3: Improve the assessment of physiological need associated with work tasks, personal protective equipment and the physical preparation of the tactical personnel.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopics in Exercise Science and KinesiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207