Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of agility training on reaction time in fencers. Accordingly, 48 athletes (24 females and 24 males) actively involved in fencing participated in the study. Fencers were divided into two groups as 24 fencers in the Agility Training Group (ATG: 12F, 12M) (aged 11.95 years, sports age 2.54 years, height 159 cm, body weight 48.08 kg and body mass index 18.81 kg/m²) and Conventional Training Group (CTG: 12F, 12M) (aged 12.12 years, sports age 2.20 years, height 156.54 cm, body weight 46.25 kg and body mass index 18.81 kg/m²). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test values in agility, vertical jump, simple reaction time and multiple reaction time tests in the ATG (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the pre-test and post-test values in agility and vertical jump tests in the CTG (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the pre-tests between the groups in the simple reaction time test (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in post-tests between the groups in the agility, simple reaction time and multiple reaction time test values (p<0.05). Based on the results of the study, it was found that simple and multiple reaction time could be positively affected by active-reactive agility training applications.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it