The Comparison of Lower Extremity Isokinetic Strength in Volleyball Players According to the Leagues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to compare the ratio of lower extremity isokinetic hamstring/quadriceps ratio (H/Q),bilateral strength difference (BLD) and relative peak torques (RPT) in volleyball players according to the leagues.101 volleyball players participated in the study (female=34, male=25 from 1st league; female=21, male=21 from 2ndleague). Isokinetic extension and flexion of knee muscle strengths of the volleyball players were determined withisokinetic dynamometer. Independent t test was used to compare volleyball players' flexor and extensor RPT, H/Qratios and BLD according to their leagues. In the study conducted, it was determined that both male and femalevolleyball players playing the 1st league had higher RPTs at 60°s-1 and 180°s-1 angular velocities. It was determinedthat volleyball players’ BLD was within the desired limits, whereas their H/Q ratios were low. As a result, it wasdetermined that the lower extremity isokinetic knee muscle RPT of the volleyball players playing in the 1st Leaguehad better values than those playing in the 2nd league, but these values were higher in the extension RPT. Since theessential requirement of volleyball is the jumping strength of the movements, this case may be related to the greaterdevelopment of the extensor muscles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".