Muscle Strength and Flexibility without and with Visual Impairments Judoka’s
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to examine muscle strength and flexibility of Judoka with and without visual impairments. A total of 32 male national judoka volunteered to participate in this study. There were 20 male judoka without visual impairments (mean±SD; age: 19.20±5.76 years, body weight: 66.45±11.09 kg, height: 169.60±7.98 cm, sport age: 6.20±1.15 years). There were 12 male judoka with visual impairments (mean±SD; age: 24.50±4.06 years, body weight: 75.58±22.49 kg, height: 173.50±7.23 cm, sport age: 8.08±1.44years). Judoka were also assessed on several strength measurements including standing long jump, right hand grip, left hand grip, vertical jump, leg strength, sit-up and push up, and flexibility with sit and reach. We found significant differences between with and without visual impairments in leg strength, left and right hand grip and push-up (p<0.05). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between with visual and without impairments in vertical jump, sit-up, flexibility, and standing long jump (p>0.05). In conclusion, it is considered that visual impairment issue does not have negative effects on physical development and muscle power performance levels for ones doing judo sport because elite active athletes’ training levels are close to each other.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".