THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PILATES EXERCISE VS FLOOR EXERCISE ON TRUNK MUSCLE ENDURANCE AMONG CRICKETERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background of the Study: Cricket is the most popular and most common sport played by men and women in India. Since cricketer’s body demand is often high as players require to bat, bowl, and field at various time throughout the game core endurance plays a vital role. The main objective was to analyze the effectiveness of Pilates exercise vs floor exercise on trunk muscle endurance among cricketers. Methodology: 30 male cricket players were recruited from Faculty of physiotherapy Dr. M.G.R Educational and Research Institute with the age group of 18-25 years. Cricket players were included after specific selection criteria for the study. Trunk muscle endurance exercises were given to the participants for 8 weeks. McGill’s torso endurance battery test used to measure the trunk muscle endurance before and after the training. The trunk exercise training was given to all cricketers. Both group A and B were independently prescribed exercise performed for alternate days in a week for 30 minutes per day and this would have been followed for 8 weeks. Paired t-test analyses were used to find the significant difference between pre and posttest measurement. Result: After the analysis, the results revealed significant improvement of trunk muscle endurance in both the groups (P value >0.0001). The Pilates group showed significant results when compared with the floor exercise group. Conclusion: The study showed beneficial results in both the groups, the result reflected that the Pilates exercise group had better improvement than the floor exercise group on trunk muscle endurance among cricketers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".