Müzisyenlerde Üst Ekstremite Fonksiyonlarının Değerlendirilmesi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study has been conducted to evaluate the upper extremitiy functions of musicians and to compare with the individuals who are not interested with music. A total of 72 individuals, including 36 musicians (Study Group) and 36 individuals (Control Group) who are not interested with music participated in the study. Sociodemographical datas of all participants in this study and music history of musicians is recorded. In the scope of this study, upper extremity endurance, coordination, reaction time, balance, grip strength, pain and problems of hand, arm and shoulders are evaluated. SPSS-20 for Windows package programme was used to estimate the data collected; Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-Square test, Kruskal Wallis test and Fisher’s Chi-Square test are used as statistical analysis method. There were no statistical differences between age, heights, weights, BMI, dominant extremities, arm lenghts and diagnosed systemic illnesses, consumption of alcohol and smoking habits (p>0,05) whereas there were significant differences between doing regular exercises and days of weekly exercises (p<0,05). It was seen that there are significant differences between endurance, upper extremity balance, coordination and reaction time (p<0,05). The grip strength results between study and control groups is also found statistically similar (p>0,05). Diffeerences in scores of short form McGill Pain Questionnare and Q-DASH test, were significant (p<0,05). As a consequence, the musicians have shown superiority than who are not interested in music in terms of upper extremity endurance, coordination, reaction time and balance, but their grip strength has shown similar consequences. Keywords: Musicians, Upper Extremity, Endurance, Coordination, Reaction Time, Balance, Grip Strength, Pain, Upper Extremity Problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".