COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SPORTS PERFORMANCE OF U18 RUGBYPLAYERS AT AN INTERVAL OF 16 YEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim. The study presents the results obtained by two groups of rugby players under the age of 18. Recent data from Swedish boys show that physical activity in children aged 11-12 years was a quarter lower in 2013 compared to 11-12 years in 2000 (Raustorp, Pagels, Froberg, & Boldemann, 2015). The analysis of the effort component of the competitive model reveals the following: effective game time 38', edges 30-35, ordered piles 25-30, agglomerations 160-180, phases game 120-140. The nature of the various types of effort encountered in the game of rugby is as follows: waiting, walking, running at different temperatures, fighting, pushing, shocking, jumping. During the last two decades the tactics have undergone a number of changes generated by adaptations of the rules of play and thus the training programs have correlated with the new guidelines. In this context Methods. The values resulting from the measurements have brought to the attention of specialists a lack of training and an inferior level of athletic qualities between the two groups.The values recorded in the following tests were compared: Suspension test. Sargent test. Cooper's test. Number of passes at 5 meters front alternately left-right. 30 Seconds Sit To Stand Test. The first testing took place in 2008. Testing was conducted at an interval of 16 years, both batches were performed at the date when the 18-year-old tests were performed. Results. A difference of 35.20% is found between the two measured values (Fig 1) in ¾ compartment, the group two having a lower readiness level. The next test was - Hanging tractions, where we find differences between both compartments, the results of the players in the second group were not inferior to those in the first group, in the case of the 3/4 compartment. Conclusions. We believe that account should be taken of the generation-specific differences in health policy forecasts and future forecasts, selection in performance sport and, in particular, in the design of selection programs, early preparation and the correlation of results with the performance of other generations of athletes. Keywords: Adapting the preparation, understanding the context, predicting evolution or evolution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".