MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953657184 · doi:10.5539/jel.v8n4p58

Investigation of Relationship Between Reactive Agility and Cognitive Parameters in Male Football Players

2019· article· en· W2953657184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yakup Aktaş

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmateurFootballPsychologyAthletesFootball playersCognitionLeagueCogTest (biology)StatisticsApplied psychologyMathematicsComputer sciencePhysical therapyArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study aims at investigating the relationship between reactive agility and cognitive performance of amateur male football players. Material and Method: Twenty-four male football players from 11 Nisan Sports Club in Şanlıurfa struggling in Regional Amateur Football League (BAL) participated in the study voluntarily. The mean age, height and weight of the football players participating in the study were 22.88 ± 4.15 year, 176.76 ± 5.90 cm and 69.76 ± 7.61 kg, respectively. Psycho-Technical Vienna system was used for Participants’ Cognitive tests, IQ (SPM), Continuous Attention (SIGNAL, SIGINAL TIME), Visual Memory (TAVTB), Determination Test (DT, DT TIME), Attention and Problem Solving (COG), Line Tracking (LVT), and Speed Distance Estimation (HMT). For the reactive agility test, the Fusion Sport Smart Speed device was used. Correlation statistics were used for the relationships between the variables. SPSS 23.0 package program was used for statistical operations. For the interpretation of statistical analyze, the significance level was accepted as 0.05. Results: There was no significant relationship between IQ (SPM), Continuous Attention (SIGNAL), Visual Memory (TAVTMB), Determination Test (DT), Attention and Problem Solving (COG), Line Tracking (LVT) with reactive agility values of male football players (p > 0.05), a significant relationship was found between Continuous Attention Reaction Time (SIGINAL TIME) the rRaction Time of the Determination test (DT TIME) and Speed Distance Estimation (HMT) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: As the content of the reactive agility test was based only on the speed and reaction speed against light and noise, it was found that the players were only associated with speed distance estimation and response time among the reactive agility performance and the cognitive tests. In order to determine the relationship between reactive agility and cognitive performance, there is a need for new reactive agility tests which are designed according to the branches where there is a distinction between competitor and team player requiring visual memory, attention, reaction, and double action skills.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207