MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409653625 · doi:10.1249/fit.0000000000001058

ChatGPT-Generated Resistance Training Programs

2025· article· en· W4409653625 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Kamel, Jennifer L. Caputo, Samantha Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueACSMʼs Health & Fitness Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResistance (ecology)Training (meteorology)Resistance trainingComputer scienceMedicineBiologyGeographyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apply It! • Experienced exercise professionals can use ChatGPT as a supplementary tool. This approach can maximize the benefits of artificial intelligence while ensuring safety and effectiveness. • Exercise professionals must market the importance of receiving professional guidance for resistance training programming. • It is essential to be mindful of concerns related to people using ChatGPT to generate resistance training programs due to the potentially inconsistent nature of artificial intelligence. • Those who use ChatGPT to develop resistance training programs are advised to make the prompt as specific as possible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.660

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACSMʼs Health & Fitness JournalSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207