The Analysis of University Students’ Views on Mentally Challenged People’s Participation to Sports Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate university students’ attitudes towards mentally challenged individuals’participation to sports activities. To collect the data, ‘Attitude towards sports activities scale of individuals havingmental disabilities’ is used. Reliability of the scale, which has been developed by (İlhan et al., 2013) and consists of 28items, is 0.96. The options, respectively, follow as: I completely agree, I agree, I’m neutral, I disagree and I completelydisagree. The study group consists of 420 students who study at Bülent Ecevit University in 2016-2017 Spring Term,and is selected randomly. The result shows that there is no statistically significant difference in the attitude ratings ofmentally challenged individuals’ participation to sports activities related to age, sex, types of education, or if there isany disabled individual living in participants’ social environments. But, type of school is a significant variant. Theratings of attitude of the participants who selected the option, ‘other’ in their school type part in the tool are higher thanof the one ones who selected the options, ‘faculty’ or ‘vocational school’.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".