Comparison of Strength, Heart Rate, Oxygen Saturation and Technical Test Values of 12–14 Year Male Tennis Players in Competition Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to compare and contrast 12 to 14 years old male tennis players in terms of strength, heart rate, oxygen saturation and technical test values. A total of 15 tennis players took part in the study after filling in a parental consent form. The average age, height and weight of the male tennis players were found to be 13.1 ± 1.06 years, 154.07 ± 5.04 cm, 36.5 ± 3.85 kg respectively. In comparing of the values, the preliminary test was applied in the first week while the last test was applied in the eighth week, taking anatomical adaptation into consideration. During that period, the players were exposed to a 90-minute training three days a week. Both during the pretest and the last test, the players were exposed to 30 seconds push-up, sit-up, ropeskipping, AOS Technical Test, SpO2 tests and their heart rates were measured. The values obtained were compared using “paired t test” with a statistical software. The significance level was taken as “p < 0.05”. Having compared the results of the first and last tests applied to the players, statistically significant differences were found between push-up, sit-up and ropeskipping rates; AOS technical test values, resting pulse, first set of heart rate values, second set of heart rate values (p < 0.05); however, there was significant difference between the first SpO2, first set of hear rate values, second set of heart rates and second set of SpO2 with regard to the pre- and post-test. It is possible to conclude that the technical trainings applied to the players improved the biomotoric and some of the physiological properties of the players, which, by extension, enhanced the 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".