The Opening Period: A Scoping Review of Menstrual Cycle Experiences and Sport and Recreational Physical Activity Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The menstrual cycle is associated with many different physical and/or affective experiences. Despite being prevalent in physically active and sporting populations, menstrual cycle experiences (MCE) do not garner much attention in the locker room or within the sport and exercise medicine field. There is also a great deal of misconception and stigma about MCE, which has contributed to a culture of ignoring and enduring MCE within female sports. To address the existing misconceptions and stigma related to MCE and sport and recreational physical activity participation, it is imperative to identify and understand the breadth of these experiences from a physical, psychological, social, and contextual perspective. Currently, the evidence related to MCE and sport and recreational physical activity participation is dispersed across disciplines and varying study designs, making it challenging to raise awareness, address misconceptions, provide recommendations, or understand practice to research gaps. This scoping review aims to consolidate and examine the current evidence related to MCE and sport and recreational physical activity participation, including performance and injury. Secondary aims are to better understand key concepts, definitions, and methods used to obtain the evidence and identify key knowledge gaps to inform future studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".