Leg Volume and Mass Scales of Elite Male and Female Athletes in Some Olympic Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to scale average leg volume and mass scales of elite male and female athletes in some olympicsports. A total of 280 elite athletes comprising of 200 males and 80 females studying at School of Physical Educationand Sports at University of Kirsehir Ahi Evran voluntarily participated in this study. Frustum and Hanavan methodswere used to determine leg volume and mass, respectively. SPSS 22.0 package program for Windows was used fordescriptive statistics analysis of the study. The present study found average leg volume and mass scale of maleathletes in football, basketball, volleyball, handball, gymnastics and wrestling and female athletes in football,basketball, volleyball, handball, gymnastics, box, taekwondo and tennis. It was observed in the related scale that legvolume of the athletes in the lowest weight classes in weight sports were lower. In other words, leg volume and massof the athletes were in direct proportion to their weight class. When the scale of female athletes is analyzed, it can benoted that volleyball players have the highest leg volume and mass among team sports players.
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".