Validation of a One-Minute Abdominal Crunch Test with the Canadian Curl-Up Test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to validate a one-minute abdominal SEMO crunch test by comparing it to the Canadian Curl-up Test (CCT). The SEMO crunch test was designed to evaluate muscular endurance via a one-minute timed effort. The CCT is a valid curl up test which ensures that an equal amount of work is being performed with each repetition. The advantage of the SEMO crunch test is time efficiency when testing large groups of subjects. All participants [n=179 (82 females; 97 males)] voluntarily consented to the study. Mean age (M=21.6 yr, F=21.4 yr), height (M=180.6 cm, F=165.8 cm), weight (M=79.7 kg, F=61.1 kg), and hours of activity per week (M=8.1, F=6.8) were reported for the participants. Participants were given specific instructions for each test prior to administration. The order of testing was counterbalanced and a minimum five-minute resting period between the two tests was required. Correlation coefficient between the CCT and the SEMO crunch test demonstrated a weak but significant relationship (r=0.185, p<0.01). The correlation coefficient for females was significant (r=0.325, p<0.01), however, the correlation coefficient for males (r=0.058, p>0.05) was not. The results indicate the SEMO crunch test is valid, however, the practical significance is questionable due to the poor relationship with the CCT. In addition, there appears to be a difference between males and females which may be attributable to the nature of the criterion measure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".