A study on psychosomatic skills among football players of University of Delhi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study's goal was to analyze and compare the mental abilities of selected variables, namely psychosomatic abilities, which include sub variables such as Stress Control, Relaxation, Fear Control, and Energizing, of Strikers and Midfielders of Intercollegiate Football Players at the University of Delhi. The study included a sample of 60 participants from the University of Delhi. The players were divided into two further groups: midfielders (N is the number of=30) and strikers (N is the number of=30). The current study exclusively comprised male participants. The participants' ages ranged from 18 to 25. The researcher examined strikers' and midfielders' mental profiles using a standardized technique. The researcher utilized the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool-3 (OMSAT-3 Version 2-2). The acquired data was subjected to an Independent Sample ’t’ Test, which was intended to compare. The Independent Sample ’t’ Test was used on the acquired data to compare the mental abilities selected variable, i.e., Psychosomatic abilities, of strikers and midfielders to see if there were any significant differences between the two player roles. At a significance level of 0.05, the study found no significant differences in Psychosomatic Skills (Stress Control, Relaxation, Fear Control and Energizing) between attackers and midfielders. This result was reached based on p-values from the statistical analysis that exceeded the significance level of 0.05.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".