Familial Similarity in Aerobic Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maximal aerobic power (MAP) exhibits considerable variation between individuals within a population. Among all causal sources contributing to variation, heredity is generally thought to exert a rather significant influence. Six hundred and seven subjects (9 to 52 years of age) from 160 families of French descent, living in the greater Quebec city area, have been measured for MAP and several related biological and cultural indicators. Subjects have been submitted to a multistage submaxi- mal ergocycle test. MAP has been estimated by regression of actual measurements of oxygen intake and heart rate (HR) at each work load to mean maximal HR. Age and sex of subjects accounted for more than 50% of the total variation in MAP. Anova procedures revealed the presence of significant familial concentrations from MAP scores adjusted for age, sex, sum of skinfolds, cigarette smoking, current energy expenditure, weekly participation in aerobic activities and socio-economic status. Inter-class correlation analysis indicated a significant spouse resemblance (r = .34), as well as a significant covariation between parents and their children (r = .19) and between children of same sibships (r = .33). These results suggest that heredity is contributing to the variation in MAP, but much less than was previously reported from twin 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".