The comparison of mental skills of elite male and female chess players in Iran.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the elite male and female chess players, mental skills in Iran. The statistical community of this present study include the active and Iranian women and men's chess players (n=867) and 260 woman (n=32) and man (n=228) players were selected as a statistical sample by means of Morgan's chart and taking into account the percent of women and men in the community. The instrument for collecting information is included the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3) under three broader conceptual components: foundation, psychosomatic, and cognitive skills. The analysis of data were done by descriptive statistics and MANOVA (p<0.05). The results of study show that there are no significant difference in none of the areas of foundation, psychosomatic, and cognitive skills between men and women. Therefore, it seems that sex has no decisive role between man and woman chess players , mental skills with attention to there was no significant difference between man and woman's chess players in the other mental skills (p<0.05) and they were at the same level. Perhaps, we can conclude that both groups were likely to use the mental skills but there is no difference between the amounts of their use. So there is no significant difference between groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".