Bibliographic record
Abstract
V zadnjih desetletjih so telovadne vaje po metodi Pilates (v nadaljevanju pilates) razsirjena oblika vadbe tako med splosno populacijo rekreativnih posameznikov kot pri rehabilitaciji po poskodbah. Pilates je danes pogosto svetovan kot alternativna oblika zdravljenja kronicne nespecificne bolecine v križu, saj se osredotoca na stabilizacijo trupa in aktivacijo misic trupa ter misic ledvenega dela hrbtenice, ki so po navadi zaradi svoje sibkosti tudi glavni razlog za nastanek bolecin v križu. Z izvajanjem pilatesa aktiviramo manjse, globoke misice telesa in izboljsamo njihovo funkcijo podpore trupa ter zmanjsamo bolecino. Namen magistrskega dela je ugotoviti, ali program vadbe, sestavljen iz vaj po metodi Pilates, vpliva na moc stabilizatorjev trupa in koliko se moc teh misic izboljsa po 8-tedenskem programu vadbe. V raziskavo je bilo vkljucenih 31 oseb (12 moskih in 19 žensk), ki so vadbo pilatesa obiskovale 1- do 2-krat tedensko na razlicnih lokacijah. Za testiranje oseb, vkljucenih v raziskavo, smo pred zacetkom in po koncu 8-tedenskega programa vadbe uporabili McGillove teste za preverjanje moci stabilizatorjev trupa (McGill's Torso muscular endurance test battery). Za namene raziskovalnega dela smo uporabili prilagojen SF-36 vprasalnik o življenjskem slogu in modificirani Roland-Morrisov vprasalnik o bolecinah v križu. Podatke, ki smo jih pridobili s pomocjo anketnega vprasalnika in McGillovih testov, smo obdelali v statisticnem programu SPSS. S pomocjo slednjega smo preverjali razlike med skupinami in primerjali rezultate testiranj pred in po 8-tedenskem programu vadbe. Ugotovili smo, da se moc stabilizatorjev trupa po 8-tedenskem programu vadbe pilatesa statisticno znacilno poveca, da se izboljsa subjektivna ocena kakovosti življenja in da se zmanjsajo bolecine. Hipotezo, da se po 8-tedenski vadbi pilatesa zmanjsa pojavnost bolecin v križu, smo zavrnili, kar je bila posledica premajhnega vzorca oseb z bolecinami v križu, vkljucenih v raziskavo.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".