The Comparison of Mental Rotation Performances and Academic Achievements in Students of the Faculty of Sport Sciences and Education Sciences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental rotation (MR) is the ability to rotate three-dimensional objects using the imagination. As the ability to generate, retrieve, maintain, and manipulate visual-spatial information, MR plays a critical role throughout education and sport. In this aspect our objective in this study was to compare MR performances and academic achievement between students of art, foreign languages (FL), computer-instructional technologies (CIT) and physical education (PE). In the computer-based MR test, the image files of the library “Mental Rotation Stimulus Library” were used with the written permission of the author. A total of 144 participants composed of 79 males and 65 females volunteered in the study. Comparing the academic achievements (AA) with the PE group and art, CIT, FL and control groups; it was observed that all the groups are better than PE (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was found between PE and all groups in MR performances (p > 0.05). In conclusion, PE students performed similarly with other students in terms of MR, although their AA were low. MR ability is clearly related not only to problem solving, acquiring mathematical knowledge and academic thinking but also to motor abilties.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".