Confident Bodies: A Pilot Study to Introduce Strength Training to Adolescent Girls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite overwhelming evidence for the physiological and biomechanical benefits of strength training in adolescent girls, there remains a prominent gap in participation due to sociological factors and exposure to correct practices. Using a mixed-methods approach, this pilot study explored the effectiveness of a 5-day program designed to introduce adolescent girls to strength training, aiming to observe whether a 5-day program could improve movement competency, confidence, and perceptions toward strength training. Twelve girls (age = 15.2 ± 0.9 years) were recruited from a 5-day strength training program. This program focused on six key movement patterns, which were instructed, explored, and applied in the strength training environment. Movement competency was evaluated pre-, post-, and 1 month after the program. Perceptions of confidence and participation were evaluated using surveys (at each time point) and focus group discussions postprogram. Participants’ movement competency significantly improved from pre- to postprogram and was maintained 1 month after ( p < .001). The program was effective in developing participants’ confidence, and they reported enjoying the program, which positively influenced their intentions to engage in subsequent strength training. Focus group discussions indicated that social connections across family, friends, and sport would support ongoing strength training uptake, yet the lack of normalized strength training for girls/women may negatively impact adherence. Overall, results lend considerable support for 5-day programs aimed at introducing adolescent girls to strength training, showing an immediate impact on movement quality and perceived confidence and potentially contributing to ongoing participation in strength training.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".