Selected components of physical fitness in rhythmic and artistic youth gymnast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Rhythmic (RG) and artistic gymnastics (AG) are very popular female sports. These two disciplines share some common points but, at the same time, they display some relevant differences in terms of physical and technical characteristics. The aim of this study was as follows: (1) to clarify how gymnastic training background over the years could lead to the development and motor learning of the motor skills and (2) to highlight differences of conditional skills achieved by RG and AG athletes. Methods For these aims, 45 athletes were selected, belonging to three balanced groups: promotional (PG, n = 15), RG ( n = 15), and AG ( n = 15). Participants were tested for joints mobility, balance, explosive strength, speed, and endurance tests. Results Statistical analysis showed a good test–retest reliability of the measurements (ICC > 0.870) and some significant differences between PG, RG, and AG. RG showed higher values in joint mobility tests (coxo-femoral mobility, 166.7 ± 6.3°; sit and reach, 20.5 ± 1.9 cm; and scapulo-humeral mobility, 45.5 ± 4.4 cm) with respect to AG, while AG showed higher values in endurance (1626.7 ± 7.4 m), balance (4.33 ± 1.35 n/60 s), and explosive strength (164.1 ± 11.6 cm) compared to RG ( p < 0.05). Conclusion RG and AG seem to be effective in enhancing different and sport-specific physical fitness and conditioning. RG enables, indeed, to develop more joints mobility whereas AG improves more strength, balance, and endurance. However, given the small sample size employed, these results should be replicated by further studies utilizing larger samples.
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".