The Evaluation of Musculoskeletal Disorders Seen in Footballers with Regard to Dominant Foot Preference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate the musculoskeletal disorders observed in footballers with regard to dominant foot preference. The research sample consists of 40 volunteer male footballers with an age range of 14–18, who are students at Aydın İncirliova Sport High School in the school year of 2018–2019. “Waterloo Handedness Questionnaire Revised” developed by Elias et al. (1998) has been used in the study to determine the footballers’’ dominant foot preferences. The questionnaire was translated into Turkish by Özsu (2006). Musculoskeletal disorders observed in footballers have been determined by the Turkish version of the Cornell Musculoskeletal Disorders Questionnaire. The questionnaire was translated into Turkish and made practicable for Turkish users by being tested by Erdinc and et al (2011). The data were evaluated with SPSS 22.0 package program in 95% confidence range and 0.05 significance level. With the statistical analysis done in the study, it has been determined that there has been no statistically significant difference between the footballers in terms of upper extremity injuries (p>0.05). When the injuries seen in lower extremities have been examined, it has been determined that there has been statistically significant difference in terms of injuries seen in left upper leg, left knee and left lower leg (p<0.05). Within the lights of the findings obtained in the study, it has been concluded that the dominant foot preferences of the footballers have not affected the injuries seen in upper extremity but they have affected the injuries seen in some regions of the lower extremity (left upper leg, left knee and left lower leg). In addition to the known preventive precautions to avoid injuries in young footballers, it can also be recommended to strengthen sufficiently not only the dominant foot but also the non-dominant one.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".