Examining effects of physical education and fine arts education on mental skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate effects of physical education and fine arts education on mental skills for University students. The study included 344 university students fulfilling The Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool completely. Obtained data were statistically analyzed with t test. While there was no significant difference in self-confidence and activation between genders (p>0.05); goal setting, commitment, stress reactions, fear control, relaxation, focusing, refocusing, imagery, mental practice and competition planning significantly differed between genders (p<0.05 and p<0.001). Students studying physical education were not significantly different from those studying fine arts in terms of goal setting, self-confidence, commitment, stress reactions, fear control, relaxation, activation, focusing, refocusing, imagery and mental practice (p>0.05). The students with five-year or longer history of doing sports got significantly higher scores for goal setting, self-confidence, commitment, activation, focusing, refocusing, imagery, mental practice and planning competition than those with one-four-year history of doing sports (p<0.05 and p<0.001). In conclusion, physical education and fine arts education had similar effects on mental skills. However, gender and history of doing sports had different effects on mental skills. Physical education and fine arts education had positive effects on mental skills, especially self-confidence. It can be recommended that students studying physical education should be offered information about arts and that students studying fine arts should be given information about sports. In addition, people receiving informal education about sports should be supported in terms of stress and relaxation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".