MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7103241442

Benefícios psicológicos da esgrima em uma idade precoce na província de Artemisa

2024· article· en· W7103241442 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePodium · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhysical education and sports games research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFencingNormativeTest (biology)Sample (material)Content analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sport is a social phenomenon of great public interest that has an important role in the physical-mental well-being, growth and comprehensive development of people. The present study had as objective to analyze the psychological benefits of practicing fencing at an early age, in the province of Artemisa. Theoretical research methods such as historical-logical, analytical-synthetic and induction-deduction were used, as well as the empirical ones as the interview that allowed to know the specialized opinion on the practice of fencing in Artemisa; the analysis of documents to explore the content of the normative documents that govern fencing and the measurement applied in the Tolouse-Pieron attention concentration test and the Torrance quick thinking test to measure individual particularities of thinking. A consultation with specialists was also carried out to highlight the importance and psychological benefits of fencing. The sample was represented by ten nine-year-old children from the "Gabino Labrador" Primary School located in the San Cristóbal municipality. Five children who had been practicing fencing for two years and five who had not were intentionally selected. The results showed that the practitioners had a greater development of the variables analyzed, this confirmed the psychological benefits that practicing this sport at an early age provides.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePodiumSame topicPhysical education and sports games researchFrench-language works237,207