Algunas características antropométricas de una población de atletas mexicanos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
General anthropometry, somatotype and proportionality (Phantom stratagem), were assessed in 100 male Mexican athletes (N = 77) and controls (N = 23). The Phantom proportionality approach indicated that Mexican athletes are smaller than either the Mexican control or the Ross Phantom prototype, on most size variables. The Heath-Carter somatotype and the level of fatness were compared in Mexican athletes, and the Olympians from Venezuela who participated at the ’68 Mexico’ and the ’76 Montreal’ Games. Mexican athletes when compared with the Olympians possessed less mesomorphy and ectomorphy demonstrated more endomorphy. However, generally speaking there were no differences in the level of fatness. Because different physiques are needed for success in different sports at the national and international levels, it is possible that these differences between the Mexican athletes and the Olympians may have been a reflection of training intensity-adaptation and individual biological variations. The body composition and somatotype of the athletes in this study were different from the Olympic 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".