Effect of Core Training Program on Physical Functional Performance in Female Soccer Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of core training program on speed, acceleration, vertical jump, and standing long jump in female soccer players. A total of 40 female soccer players volunteered to participate in this study. They were divided randomly into 1 of 2 groups: core training group (CTG; n = 20) and control group (CG; n = 20). The mean (SD) age was 19.05 ± 1.15 years, height was 160.60 ± 4.22 cm, weight was 56.45 ± 3.33 kg, and sport age was 4.50 ± 1.24 for the core training group; the mean (SD) age was 18.55 ± 0.76 years, height was 159.10 ± 3.86 cm, weight was 52.20 ± 3.60 kg, and sport age was 3.35 ± 0.75 years for the control group. Following randomization, the 2 groups did not differ significantly (p&gt;0.05) in any of the dependent variables. The subjects in the control group did not participate in the training and participated only in the pre- and posttest measurements. To evaluate the effect of core training over the functional performance, we applied a testing procedure that included measurements of speed, acceleration, vertical jump, and standing long jump. The core training group showed a 3.4%, 5.9%, 13.3%, 4.2% improvement in speed, acceleration, vertical jump, and standing long jump (respectively) (P&lt;0.05), whereas the control group did not change (P&gt;0.05). In conclusion, Core exercises were improved speed, acceleration, vertical jump, and standing long jump in 18-19 years-old female soccer players. Therefore, it is believed core training is necessary for optimal sport performance and should not be dismissed for all sport branches.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".