MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex And Gender Bias In Movement Competence And Confidence Across The Lifespan

2024· article· en· W4402661914 on OpenAlexaff
Natalie Houser, James Wagner, Dean Kriellaars

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChildren's Physical and Motor Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCompetence (human resources)Confidence intervalDevelopmental psychologyDemographySocial psychologyMedicineSociologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: It has been posited that movement behaviour variances that exist between males and females may not only be a result of biological sex, but also differences in gender treatment in movement contexts arising from differential expectations (gender bias) that may exist across the lifespan. This can be demonstrated in differences in injury rates (e.g., ACL), physical activity levels, and associated movement competencies. Persistence of bias and the competency/confidence connection is currently underexplored but a necessary component of physical literacy. As such, the purpose was to explore differences in movement competence and confidence throughout the lifespan to begin to understand potential sex and gender biases and the lifelong impact. METHODS: Using a PRISMA model, a systematic review search identified studies on sex differences in movement competence and movement confidence, based on searches in Pubmed, EBSCO and ProQuest databases. A random-effects meta-analysis examined the differences in competence and confidence in males and females across the lifespan, with significance set at p<0.05. RESULTS: Fifteen studies on movement competence (4554 participants) and 7 studies on movement confidence (1646 participants) were identified with data suitable for meta-analysis, with studies ranging from an average age of 1.5 to 64 years. There was a significant effect of sex differences (male>female) for both competence (pooled effect= -0.77; Z=-7.55; p<0.01- see figure) and confidence (pooled effect= -0.49; Z=-4.88; p<0.01), consistent with persistent lifespan effects. CONCLUSIONS: The demonstrated lifespan differences in competence and confidence from pre-pubertal to geriatric populations is disconcerting, and the origins of this may be arsing from gender bias, warranting further exploration. Based on physical literacy, the linkages between competence and confidence are a vehicle for exploring gender bias in various movement contexts.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.012
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicChildren's Physical and Motor DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207