COMPARISON OF MENTAL SKILLS (FOUNDATION; PSYCHOSOMATIC AND COGNITIVE) IN ATHLETES PARTICIPATED IN I. R. IRAN PHYSICAL FITNESS AND AEROBIC NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main Objective of this research was to compare the mental skills profile Athletesparticipated in Physical Fitness and Aerobic National Championships on 2010 in IslamicRepublic of Iran. The statistical population of this research consist of ten best teams- 421athletes- were evaluated to determine mental profile; completed the Ottawa Mental SkillsAssessment Tool “OMSAT-3 “that its significant in the first stages of the research is calculatedwith Alpha Kronbakh factor 0/878 . Collected dates were analyzed by inferential and descriptivemethods; T- test was used; with a significance level of 5% and the bellow results were achieved:· The average age of Physical Fitness athletes is 35/4± 9/9 years and The average age ofaerobic athletes is 23/6± 3/6 years. The average sport record of Fitness athlete'sis10/4±6/9 years and the average sport record of aerobic athlete's is5/6±3/3 years.· Significant difference was reported between fitness and aerobic teams in their response tofoundation skills.· No significant difference was reported between fitness & aerobic teams in their responseto psychosomatic skills.· No significant difference was reported between fitness and aerobic teams in theirresponse to cognitive skills.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".