MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980440736 · doi:10.5539/ass.v10n1p21

The Effect of Using Video on Developing Physical Fitness of Physical Education Students at the Hashemite University

2013· article· en· W1980440736 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud Al‐Haliq, Mo’een Ahmad Oudat, Mohammad Abu Al-Taieb

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicSports and Physical Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrowingPhysical educationPhysical fitnessTest (biology)PsychologyPhysical therapyLong jumpMathematics educationJumpMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of video on developing physical fitness to physical education students at the Hashemite University. The study sample consisted of (20) Physical education students They were divided into two groups, the control group (10) students went through traditional physical practice method, and the experimental group (10) students went through physical practice using video, Pre and post-tests were carried out to measure student’s development in physical fitness (Vertical jump from stability, Throwing and receiving the ball, Trunk bending forward from standing, Zigzag running, Throwing a ball to the farthest distance and 25m running). Statistical analysis included t-Test for mean at pre and post test for the two groups, and t-Test for mean at post test in the two groups. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in post test between the two groups in favor of the experimental group, it is concluded that using video improved physical fitness level more than the traditional method. The researchers recommended using video to developing physical fitness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.445 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicSports and Physical Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207