Efficacy of Pall-of Press vs. Russian Twists on Core muscles of recreational athletes -A Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few years, Pall-of Press is an exercise widely used by strength and conditioning coaches in improving the rotational core muscles strength. Pall-of Press is an isometric type of exercise. Russian Twists is a dynamic type of exercise used widely over decades in any core muscles protocol. This study compares the difference between Pall-of Press (static/isometric) and Russian twists (dynamic). This study compares the effect of Pall-of Press and Russian Twists on stability of the rotational muscles of core. This study also observed if there was any difference produced in the endurance and strength of core muscles (rotational muscles) by Pall-of Press and Russian Twists. According to the methodology, 50 recreational athletes were included in the study after screening them based on the selection criteria. McGill’s Torso Endurance test was used to measure endurance and Kneeling Medicine Ball Throw Test (Rotational component) was used to measure the strength of rotational muscles of core.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".