Effects of Skill Training on the Sprint Performance of Secondary School Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of skill training on sprint performance of secondary school athletes. Purposive sampling was used to select Model Secondary School, Nsukka. Thirteen (13) athletes of the chosen secondary school participated in the study, eight (8) male and five (5) female athletes. The quasi-experimental research design was adopted for this study. The instruments for data collection were a training schedule prepared by the researchers and a stopwatch. The analysis of the data was done using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) batch system version 21. The data collected were analysed and presented in tables. The statistical tools used were mean, standard deviation and the null hypotheses were tested using ANCOVA. The subjects recorded a residual score of 0.75s for the return time and 0.655ms-1 for speed which indicates an improvement on the return time and the speed respectively. There was a significant difference in the mean pre-test and post-test scores based on gender. The study concludes that skill training improved the sprint performance of athletes, it is considered paramount for successful performance and further recommends that student-athletes should be properly trained before enrolling in any competition.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".