Examination of Academic Achievement in Early Adolescence: A Comparison for Adolesence with Visual Impairments Doing Sport or Not Doing Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was examination of academic achievement of early adolescents with visual impairments. Eighty eight children from Turkey, (age=12.30±1.22 years; height=144.10±5.51 cm; weight=41.45±4.68 kg) for twenty female athletes, (age=12.30±1.79; height=151.04±7.49 cm; weight=48.18±7.63 kg) for twenty seven male athletes, and (age=11.52±1.44 years; height=143.86±6.66 cm; weight=45.95±6.30 kg) for twenty one female sedentary, (age=12.95±1.00; height=146.55±5.61 cm; weight=47.60±4.84 kg) for twenty male sedentary, participated as volunteer in this research. All athletes and sedentary had 3 of sport classifications for the blind. A significantly differences was found between athletes and sedentary in the early adolescencewith visual impairments (p≤0.05). There was no significantly differences between the females and males in the early adolescencewith visual impairments (p≥0.05). There was no interaction between gender in the early adolescencewith visual impairments group (p>0.05). In conclusion, when visually impaired individuals do sport, their self-confidence increases, they appear to keep themselves away from stress and anxiety and show high motivation in class environments. Finally, they become more successful individuals in their academic career.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".