Quality of life in Brazilian martial arts and combat sports practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Study aim : Martial arts and combat sports have been an alternative for individuals seeking the health benefits of physical activity and exercise, but little is known about its practitioners’ quality of life. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of life of practitioners of five of the most common modalities in Brazil. Material and methods : A total of 922 young men, competitive and recreational practitioners of Brazilian jiu-jitsu, judo, karate, kung-fu, and taekwondo, answered the Brazilian version of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Results : The results for each domain – physical, psychological, social, and environmental – are, respectively, as follow (mean ± standard deviation): Brazilian jiu-jitsu: 74 ± 11, 75 ± 12, 77 ± 17, 67 ± 14; judo: 74 ± 13, 75 ± 12, 77 ± 15, 64 ± 12; karate: 76 ± 13, 75 ± 12, 78 ± 15, 64 ± 13; kung-fu: 77 ± 13, 75 ± 13, 74 ± 17, 65 ± 13; taekwondo: 76 ± 12, 76 ± 11, 78 ± 16, 64 ± 13; total: 75 ± 13, 75 ± 12, 77 ± 16, 65 ± 13. There was no difference between modalities and no interaction between modalities and experience level. All groups and the total sample presented higher values than the normative national data in the physical and psychological domains. This was also the case for the judo, karate, and taekwondo groups, as well as the total sample in the social domain, and for the Brazilian jiu-jitsu and the whole sample in the environmental domain. Additionally, in the whole sample competitors scored higher than recreational practitioners in the psychological domain. Conclusion : These findings reveal that the practice of these modalities is associated with higher quality of life than the normative values. Longitudinal studies are warranted for a better understanding of this association.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".