Passion in Referees: Examining Their Affective and Cognitive Experiences in Sport Situations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research examined in two studies the role of passion for refereeing in referees' affective and cognitive functioning during games. In line with past research on the dualistic model of passion (Vallerand et al., 2003), Study 1 (n1=90 and n2=148) revealed that harmonious passion (HP) for refereeing was positively associated with positive emotions and the experience of flow during games. Conversely, obsessive passion (OP) for refereeing was unrelated to positive emotions and flow, but was positively associated with negative emotional experiences during games. Study 2 (n=227) examined referees' affective and cognitive functioning after having committed an important mistake. Results showed that HP was negatively associated with maladaptive affective and cognitive functioning after a bad call, whereas OP was positively associated with such maladaptive functioning, including subsequent poor decision making. In addition, in both studies, most referees reported to be passionate toward refereeing. Finally, results from both studies remained the same after controlling for referees' gender, age, years of experience, and types of sports.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it