Response of vertical jump height in female athletes 10-14 years old to a lower body strength training program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strength training is safe and effective for children according to a position statement by the National Strength and Conditioning Association (2009). One such effect or benefit can be increased vertical jump ability. Due to methodological inconsistencies, determining whether strength training consistently leads to increased vertical jump has been difficult to do. This randomized study involved a 12-week, two-time per week lower body strength training program for the intervention group, and an upper body strength training program for the control group. A countermovement jump tested at baseline and post-intervention by a blinded observer measured the effect of this training intervention on the vertical jump ability of 10-14 year old athletic females (n=36). The results revealed no significant changes within each group from baseline to post-intervention and no significant differences between each group. It appears that a number of factors may have influenced the results of this study not the least of which was the high baseline ability of the participants. More research using strong methods, a sufficient training stimulus and female children is needed in order to clarify the response of vertical jump to a resistance training intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".