Relationship Between Jump Performance and Sport Ages in U16 Basketball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate the jump performance of youth basketball players according to their sport ages. 26 male basketball players (14.1±1.6 year) who participated in the study were divided into two groups of sport ages of 4 and below (≤4) and 6 and above (≥6). The group with sports ages ≤4 consisted of 12 male basketball players with a height of 162±2.56 cm, a body weight of 51.4±3.04 kg, a body mass index of 19.4±0.74 kg/m². The other group with sports ages ≥6 consisted of 14 male basketball players with a height of 155.9±1.98 cm, a body weight of 45.7±1.85 kg, a body mass index of 18.8±0.69 kg/m. All basketball players’ squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) were measured (Optojump Microgate Bolzano, Italy). The Mann Whitney U test was used to determine whether there were differences between groups in terms of T flighttimes and jump heights. Statistically significant level of p<0.05 was accepted. As a result of the study, no statistically significant difference was observed between the sport ages and SJ and CMJ splashes. In this respect, it can be considered that the Jump performance does not develop in parallel with the training age, and that the jump ability of this cause may be more related to motor skill and ability than the training age.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".