The comparison of elite, blind, and amateur male and female chess players' mental skills in Iran.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was the comparison of elite, blind, and amateur male and female chess players’ mental skills in Iran. The statistical population of this study was all elite, blind, and amateur male and female chess players of Iran.478male and female chess players were selected as statistical sample by stratified sampling (Nelitefemale = 32, N blind female = 34, Namateur female = 61,Nelitemale = 228, N blind male = 24, Namateur male = 99). The instrument of measurement was included the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool (OMSAT-3) under three broader conceptual components: foundation, psychosomatic, and cognitive skills. The collected data were classified by descriptive statistical methods and were analyzed by ANOVA (P≤0.05). The results of this study shows that there is a significant difference between elite, blind, amateur male and female chess players of Iran in the self-confidence, commitment, and mental training components of mental skills but there is no significant difference between elite, blind, amateur male and female chess players of Iran in other components of mental skills
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".