Comparison of CAMSA Test Battery Results Between Floorball Players and Children Without Organized Physical Activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: Comparison of CAMSA Test Battery Results Between Floorball Players and Children Without Organized Physical Activity Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the level of motor competence between floorball players and children not engaged in organized sports, using the CAMSA test battery. The target age for both groups is 8 to 12 years. Methods: A total of 32 children (boys and girls) aged 8-12 participated in the study. The research sample was divided into a floorball group (n = 17), consisting of children engaged in regular floorball training for over 12 months, and a non-sporting group (n = 15), comprising children with no history of organized sport participation. Both groups were assessed using the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment (CAMSA) test battery. The better of the two measured attempts was used for further statistical analysis and comparison between the groups. Results: The study demonstrated that children who regularly engage in floorball training achieve significantly higher results in the CAMSA test compared to the group of children not participating in organized physical activity. They thus exhibit a higher level of motor competence in both time efficiency and quality of performance. Furthermore, the influence of floorball was confirmed in individual...
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".