MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921798966 · doi:10.7352/ijsp2014.45.516

Passion, coping, and anxiety in sport: The interplay between key motivational and self-regulatory processes

2014· article· en· W1921798966 on OpenAlex
Jérémie Verner‐Filion, Robert J. Vallerand, Eric G. Donahue, Elise Moreau, A. Martin, Geneviève A. Mageau

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Bank (Australian Catholic University) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionPsychologyCoping (psychology)AnxietySocial psychologyCompetitive athletesSport psychologyAthletesClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper examined the interplay between key motivational and selfregulatory processes, namely passion and coping strategies, and their relation with anxiety in the sport domain. Two studies with a combined 348 athletes were conducted in order to test a model whereby two types of passion were differentially related to anxiety through the use of different coping strategies. Overall, results supported our hypotheses by demonstrating that harmonious passion was associated to approach-oriented coping strategies which, in turn, were related to less anxiety. In contrast, obsessive passion was positively related to avoidance-oriented coping strategies which, in turn, were associated with more anxiety. This paper identifies coping strategies as a mediator in the relation between passion and anxiety, thus providing further support for the study of the relation between motivational and self-regulatory processes in order to better understand athletes’ psychological adjustment in sport.

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 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 score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.295 · 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