A survey study on cognitive skills among university level football players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study's goal was to look into and contrast Cognitive abilities of a subset of the players on the University of Delhi's intercollegiate football team, specifically the strikers and midfielders. These sub-variables include Imagery, Focusing, Refocusing, Competition Planning and Mental Practice. A sample of sixty (60) students from the University of Delhi participated in the study. Two groups were formed out of the athletes: strikers (30) and midfielders (30). There were only male participants in this study. The age range of the participants was 18 to 25. Using a standardized technique, the researcher looked at the mental profiles of midfielders and strikers. The Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool-3 (OMSAT-3 Version 2-2) was employed by the researcher. An Independent Sample ‘t’ test was performed on the collected data with the goal of comparing. To assess the mental abilities selected variable (i.e., Cognitive abilities) of strikers and midfielders and determine whether there were any significant differences between the two player roles, the Independent Sample ‘t’ test was applied to the collected data. The study found no statistically significant differences between strikers and midfielders in Cognitive Skills (Imagery, Focusing, Refocusing, Competition Planning and Mental Practice) at a significance level of 0.05. Based on p-values from the statistical analysis that were higher than the significance level of 0.05, this conclusion was drawn.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".