Investigation of the Aerobic and Power Anaerobic Powers of the Students in Secondary School in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to investigate the aerobic and anaerobic powers of students in different grades of the schools and describe the correlation between these powers. Upon the written approval of Samsun National Education Management, this study was carried out with the voluntary participation of 120 females and 120 males aged 11–16, who were healthy and were not active in sports. The total number of the subjects participating in the study was 240. The aerobic and anaerobic power tests of the subjects were determined through Cooper and Wingate tests respectively. All statistical calculations were evaluated through the SPSS 13 package program. The relationship between the aerobic and anaerobic powers of male and female students aged 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 was examined through Spearman correlation test. The correlations between anaerobic and aerobic powers of the subjects were as follows: 0.06 for 11-year-olds, 0.43 for 12-year-olds, 0.21 for 13-year-olds, 0.24 for 14-year-olds, 0.27 for 15-year-olds, and 0.12 for 16-year-olds in females while 0.13 for 11-year-olds, 0.01 for 12-year-olds, 0.13 for 13-year-olds, 0.43 for 14-year-olds, 0.23 for 15-year-olds, and 0.56 for 16-year-olds in males. In conclusion, no meaningful correlations between the anaerobic and aerobic powers of subjects were found.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".