Discriminant Analysis of Anthropometric and Training Variables among Runners of Different Competitive Levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the multivariate profile of different types of Brazilian runners and to identify the discriminant pattern of the distinct types of runners, as a runners' ability to self-classify well. The sample comprised 1235 Brazilian runners of both sexes (492 women; 743 men), with a mean age of 37.94 ± 9.46 years. Individual characteristics were obtained through an online questionnaire: Sex, age, body height (m) and body mass (kg), socioeconomic status, and training information (i.e., self-classification, practice time, practice motivation, running pace, frequency and training volume/week). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted by sex and the discriminant analysis was used to identify which among running pace, practice time, body mass index and volume/training could differentiate groups such as "professional athletes", "amateur athletes" and "recreational athletes". For both sexes, running pace was the variable that better discriminated the groups, followed by BMI and volume/week. The practice time is not a good indicator to differentiate runner's types. In both sexes, semi-professional runners were those that better self-classify themselves, with amateur runners presenting the highest classification error. This information can be used to guide the long-term training, athlete's selection programs, and to identify the strengths and weaknesses of athletes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".