The Effect of a 8 Week-Explosive Power Training on Some Performance Parameters of Students who Studying in Sports High School
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim of this study is to analyze the effect of a 8 week-explosive power training on some performance parameters of students who studying in sports high school. A total of 101 healthy male canoist students who studying in sports high school volunteered to participate in this study. students were randomly divided into two groups and test (N = 51) and control (N = 50) groups were formed. Explosive power trainings were applied to test group during 8 weeks as 30-minute trainings for 3 days a week in addition to canoe training and control group continued only canoe training. All data were obtained twice as pre-test and post-test before and after training. Four line sprint test, standing long jump test and 20m sprint test were used to determine performances of the subjects When results of the study are examined, it is seen that explosive power trainings applied during 8 weeks had statistically significant effects in favor of the post-tests for 20m sprint, sprint-agility and standing long jump performances pre-test and post-test results (P<0.05). In addition, when post-test results of test and control group were compared, it was found that test group's 20m sprint, sprint-agility and standing long jump performances post-test results showed statistically more significant improvement than control group's post-test results (P<0.05). These results confirm our expectations before the research. Consequently, it can be thought that explosive power trainings applied have positive effects on 20m sprint, sprint-agility and standing long jump performances.
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 | 0.000 | 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".