A Comparative Study Of Effect Of Yoga Intervention On Para Yogasana Athletes’ Yoga Attitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was carried out on the 40 males and 46 females (N=86) in the age group of 13 to 21 years who had participated at district and state level para yogasana championships across 5 states of India in the prescribed categories (blind, under 20 years of age, deaf, under 20 years of age, orthopedically handicapped- group-A, under 20 years of age, and orthopedically handicapped, group-B under 20 years of age) as per classification by Yogasana Bharat, the controlling body of yogasana sport in India. 30 minutes of Yog-Nidra session was used as an intervention for 5 weeks (3 days a week). The yoga attitude was measured pre and post intervention using the IBM SPSS version. We used descriptive and ANCOVA statistical tests for data analysis. Results: No significant differences in yoga attitude amongst males and females as well as amongst the para yogasana athletes according to the type of disability were found. It was concluded that the yoga intervention benefited all the athletes equally, irrespective of their gender or the type of disability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".