Examination of Balance and Isokinetic Strength in Female Volleyball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research is: (a) to compare the dominant and non-dominant leg isokinetic strength and balance, (b) to compare the balance applied on the same side to different directions and isokinetic strength applied to the same side at different angular velocities and (c) to examine the relationship between the balance and isokinetic strength applied at different angular velocities in female volleyball players. Eleven senior female volleyball players voluntarily participated in the research. Isokinetic knee flexion and extension strength were separately obtained on concentric/concentric dominant and non-dominant leg as 5 repetitions at 60˚.s-1 angular velocity, 10 repetitions at 180˚.s-1 and 15 repetitions at 300˚.s-1. The balance test was performed for both sides in anterior (ANT), posterolateral (PL) and posteromedial (PM) directions. In female volleyball players, there is no significant difference between the dominant and non-dominant leg in terms of isokinetic strength and balance. A significant difference was detected between the balance applied in different directions on the same side and isokinetic force applied at different angular velocities. However, there is not any significant relationship between isokinetic strength and balance in female volleyball players. As a result, there is no isokinetic strength and balance asymmetry in volleyball and there is no relationship between them. This may be an indication of the need for both legs in volleyball.
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".