The Comparison of the Functional Movement Screen Test Results of Volleyball National Team Players in Different Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to compare the functional movement patterns of female volleyball players from different countries. 34 the women’s volleyball national team athletes from three different countries participated in the study; Turkey (n=9), Azerbaijan (n=16) and Kyrgyzstan (n=9). Functional movement screen of the athletes were determined by the Functional Movement Screen (FMS) test kit. The Kruskal-Wallis H Test was used for multiple comparisons from nonparametric tests in determining the difference between functional movement patterns of national teams. At the end of the study, it was determined that the FMS total scores of the teams were higher than 14 points which were considered as critical limits and there was no statistically significant difference between the FMS total scores of the teams (p<0.05). However, there were significant differences between the teams in the hurdle step, shoulder clearing test and shoulder mobility tests which formed the FMS test battery. As a conclusion, the fact that volleyball players in each country have more than 14 points of FMS total score, which is the critical limit, shows that volleyball players have low risk of injury. This may be related to the elite level of volleyball players and the implementation of correct training models.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".