MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1868673665 · doi:10.5298/1081-5937-43.2.01

A Preliminary Study on the Relationship Between Athletes' Ability to Self-Regulate and World Ranking

2015· article· en· W1868673665 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Dupee, Penny Werthner, Tanya Forneris

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofeedback · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesElite athletesRanking (information retrieval)Skin conductanceHeart ratePsychologyAnalysis of varianceHeart rate variabilityPhysical therapyMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to explore the relationship between elite athletes' self-regulation ability and their ranking at the world level using psychophysiological stress assessment profiling. Fifteen elite level athletes' psychophysiological stress response patterns were recorded during a nine-stage stress assessment. Respiration rate, heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance, peripheral body temperature, and electromyograph (trapezius and frontalis) were monitored. There was a significant correlation between elite athletes' overall self-regulation ability and their ranking at the world level, meaning that the better the overall self-regulation ability of the athlete, the better the world ranking. In addition, a multiple regression analysis indicated that self-regulation accounted for 76% of the variance in world ranking. Our results suggest the existence of a relationship between elite athletes' overall self-regulation ability and their ranking at the world level. Therefore, the results of this study have important implications for training of optimal psychophysiological self-regulation in athletes.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofeedbackSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207