MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2420621901 · doi:10.1515/hukin-2015-0129

Selected Cognitive Abilities in Elite Youth Soccer Players

2015· article· en· W2420621901 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Kinetics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsGroup for Research in Decision Analysis
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Raven's Progressive MatricesAthletesPsychologyAnticipation (artificial intelligence)CognitionApplied psychologyDevelopmental psychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapyMedicineArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of talent in soccer is critical to various programs. Although many research findings have been presented, there have been only a few attempts to assess their validity. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between talent and achievement variables in the Vienna Test System. The participants were 91 Czech soccer players, representing four youth soccer teams, who were born in the year 2000. These boys were divided into two groups according to their coaches' assessments using a TALENT questionnaire. A two-factor model (component 1: "kinetic finesse"; component 2: "mental strength") was designed to interpret the responses of the coaches on the questionnaire. The Vienna Test System was used to determine the level of players' cognitive abilities. In total, the subjects performed seven tests in the following order: Raven's Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM), a reaction test (RT), a determination test (DT), a visual pursuit test (LVT), a Corsi Block-Tapping Test (CORSI), a time/movement anticipation test (ZBA), and a peripheral perception test (PP). To analyze the relationship between talent and achievement variables within the Vienna Test System, correlation analyses were performed. The results revealed that the talented group attained significantly better results on only 1 of the 16 variables, which was ZBA2: movement anticipation - deviation of movement median (r = .217, p = .019). A comparison of the two talent components showed that component 1 ("kinetic finesse") was a more significant factor than component 2 ("mental strength"). Although we observed statistically significant correlations, their actual significance remains questionable; thus, further research is required.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.256 · 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