MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6927358459 · doi:10.26076/cafb-59fa

Survey of NCAA Athletic Trainers’ Administration of the National Wrestling Coaches Association Weight Certification Program

2021· article· en· W6927358459 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertificationCalipersAthletesConsistency (knowledge bases)CalculatorQuarter (Canadian coin)Sports medicineOverweight

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) implemented a minimum weight certification program in 1997 to help protect wrestlers from dangerous weight loss practices. Despite nearly a quarter of a century of this program, there is no published research detailing the implementation of it. Objective: Determine how the NCAA minimum weight certification is being implemented across Division I programs. Design: Cross-sectional study Setting: Survey Patients or Other Participants: A total of 35 (45.5%) of 77 NCAA division I wrestling athletic trainers responded to the survey. Main Outcome Measure(s): Survey data on how the NCAA minimum weight certification program was implemented at the division I level was collected. Results: Nearly all respondents used athletic trainers to take their measurements. Most staff (74.3%) had five or more years of experience taking the measurements, and only one (2.9%) had less than a year of experience. The time prior to competition that the measurement was taken ranged widely from 2 to 110 days. Nearly all (97.1%) used skinfold calipers, and just one program (2.9%) specified a different method, iDXA scan. Of those using the skinfold calipers, 52.9% used Lange calipers and 32.4% did not know the caliper type. Everyone used the same three measurement locations. Body density was converted to %BF with the Brozek formula at 13% of the institutions, the Siri formula at 4.3% of programs, “other” (defined by respondents as the optimal performance calculator provided by the NWCA) at 13% of schools, and 69.6% did not know. Conclusion: Overall, there appears to be great consistency in the administration of the minimal wrestling weight standards across NCAA Division I wrestling programs.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.209 · 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