MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2665556324 · doi:10.16926/par.2017.05.13

Health in the context of martial arts practice

2017· article· en· W2665556324 on OpenAlexaff
Jacek Wąsik, Agata Wójcik

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Activity Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMartial Arts: Techniques, Psychology, and Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMartial artsContext (archaeology)Visual artsPsychologyArtHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the manifestations of physical activity are martial arts. Modern research also concerns the problem of treating martial arts not only as a means of self defence, sport or how one spends their free time, but also as a therapy. Therapy through traditional martial arts can help treat many medical disorders. It was acclaimed that participation in the traditional martial arts promotes mental health. It was noted that the sense of self-worth and self-esteem of competence is directly related to the time spent doing training. Current studies show that the traditional martial arts are largely effective, complementary strategy of medical care and rehabilitation of chronic diseases. By watching yet another MMA event on the TV, seeing players’ faces being hit and blood flowing on their bodies, it is worth to be aware that it’s just a spectacular event. The everyday life of people concerned with martial arts is different. Often times they undertake these exercises to improve their physical fitness and the quality of life. It is followed by taking responsibility for their health and not giving it exclusively to the doctor. This results in an active and rational fight agains any disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.388 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Activity ReviewSame topicMartial Arts: Techniques, Psychology, and EducationFrench-language works237,207