The effect of breath retention of swimming skills in pre-school children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has examined breathing strategies for preschool aged swimmers. The standard Canadian swim program focuses on exhaling while performing skills; however, alternate programs teach breath retention. Skill development and overall comfort in the water were examined in four level 2 swim classes (N = 16, M = 4.8, SD = 1.52 years); two classes were taught to exhale while performing front glides, back glides, front floats, and back floats, while two classes were taught to hold their breath. The skills were rated on the first and last week of an eight-week program by three swim instructors. Inter-rater reliability was high. Performance of the front (p<.01) and back (p=.03) glides and back float (p=.05) showed greater improvement for the breath retention groups. Performing front float showed trends towards greater change for the breath retention groups, but this difference was not significant at conventional levels (p~.07). The groups did not differ substantially on overall comfort in the water.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".