Methodological Considerations for Studies in Sport and Exercise Science with Women as Participants: A Working Guide for Standards of Practice for Research on Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until recently, there has been less demand for and interest in female-specific sport and exercise science data. As a result, the vast majority of high-quality sport and exercise science data have been derived from studies with men as participants, which reduces the application of these data due to the known physiological differences between the sexes, specifically with regard to reproductive endocrinology. Furthermore, a shortage of specialist knowledge on female physiology in the sport science community, coupled with a reluctance to effectively adapt experimental designs to incorporate female-specific considerations, such as the menstrual cycle, hormonal contraceptive use, pregnancy and the menopause, has slowed the pursuit of knowledge in this field of research. In addition, a lack of agreement on the terminology and methodological approaches (i.e., gold-standard techniques) used within this research area has further hindered the ability of researchers to adequately develop evidenced-based guidelines for female exercisers. The purpose of this paper was to highlight the specific considerations needed when employing women (i.e., from athletes to non-athletes) as participants in sport and exercise science-based research. These considerations relate to participant selection criteria and adaptations for experimental design and address the diversity and complexities associated with female reproductive endocrinology across the lifespan. This statement intends to promote an increase in the inclusion of women as participants in studies related to sport and exercise science and an enhanced execution of these studies resulting in more high-quality female-specific data.
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 | 0.632 | 0.679 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".