Examination of Attitudes of Sports Science Faculty Students about Energy Drinks, Sports Drinks and Ergogenic Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumption of beverages is not considered adequate by athletes and coaches. The preliminary knowledge of those who are going to study in Sports Sciences Faculties will be very important. All participants were 1st year students. In the study, participants were asked to assess their socio-demographic characteristics and health behaviors, sport habbits, to determine energy drinks (ED), sports drinks (SD) and ergogenic substances (ES) patterns and frequency and consumption purposes, relationship between consumption status. Use a data collection form was prepared to determine the presence or absence of relevant proposals. Total of 101 participants (55 males, 19.2±1.5; 46 females, 19.0±1.2 years of age), participated in the survey to examine the attitudes of ED, SD and ES. The data were evaluated in the SPSS 21.0. The categorical variablesin the questionnaire were reported as number, percentage, mean and standard deviation. A "chi-square test" and One way ANOVA tests was used. Statistical significance level was accepted as p <0,05. 52.5% of the students stated that energy drinks were beneficial, 57.4% said sports drinks were beneficial and 61.4% of the participants said that they did not have an idea about "ergogenic substances". The prevalence of ED usage was 40.0% for males and 19.5% for females (p: 0.027). While 45.4% of the males are using the SDs, this rate was found to be 13.0% in females (p<0.001). Regarding the use of ED, SD and ES, the young population and especially the sports educators in the future should be informed for the public health. As a result of this study, we would like to draw attention to the importance of education for pre-university youth. In recent years, it is important to make new educational arrangements for the developing and changing consumption habits of young people.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".