The Effect of a Handball Warm-Up Program on Dynamic Balance among Elite Adolescent Handball Players
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
This study examined the effect of the handball warm-up program (HWP) on dynamic balance among elite adolescent handball players. In this case, 24 handball players were randomly assigned into experimental warm-up and control groups. The HWP was performed over 8 weeks (3 times per week). Dynamic balance before and after the intervention training programs were measured by the Biodex Balance System (BBS) and Y Balance test for the dominant (DL) and non-dominant legs (non-DL). After HWP training, BBS scores significantly improved in the overall (OSI) (30.4% and 31.1%), anterior-posterior (APSI) (44.6% and 35.2%), and medial-lateral stability indexes (MLSI) (38.8% and 43%) for both DL and non-DL. Post-training, the Y Balance test exhibited significant improvements in OSI (13.2% and 10.6%), anterior (17.2% and 12.6%), posteriolateral (12.8% and 11.3%), and posteriomedial stability indexes (9.2% and 7.9%) with DL and non-DL, respectively. In conclusion, dynamic balance improved overall after eight weeks of the HWP, with this improvement significantly greater with the trained versus the control group. Optimal balance during handball is an important factor to ensure coordinated and efficient movements and it is speculated that improved balance could positively impact injury prevention. Hence, the HWP program can be used as an alternative to a conventional warm-up program.
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