Investigation of Relationship Between Physical Activity Levels and Quality of Life of University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is a positive or negative relationship between the quality of life of the students and their physical activity levels (PAL). A total of 469 students participated in the study (female = 209, male = 260). The physical activity levels of the participants were determined as "International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF)" and their quality of life was determined by the World Health Organization (WHOQOL-BREF). In the statistical analysis, parametric tests were used because of the normal and homogeneous distribution of the data. The difference between PAL and quality of life scores was evaluated by MANOVA test. The relationship between PAL and quality of life of the participants was tested by Pearson Correlation test. The overall health status of the participants was 87% (n = 408) good-very good and the level of physical activity was 88.1% (n = 413) moderate-high active. There was no statistically significant difference between the PAL and quality of life scores of the participants. After Pearson Correlation test, there was no correlation between PAL and quality of life at r2 at p
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".