Predicting Performance Times From Deliberate Practice Hours for Triathletes and Swimmers: What, When, and Where Is Practice Important?
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
In Studies 1 and 2, the authors evaluated deliberate practice theory through analyses of the relationship between practice and performance for 2 populations of athletes: triathletes and swimmers, respectively. In Study 3, the authors obtained evaluations of practice from athletes' diaries. Across athletes, length of time involved in fitness activities was not related to performance. For the triathletes, a significant percentage of variance in performance was captured by practice. This was not so for sprint events for the swimmers, in which gender was a significant predictor. In the diaries, physical activities were perceived as enjoyable. In contrast to the results obtained from questionnaires, enjoyment did not covary with an activity's relevance to improving performance. Although these findings highlight the importance of sport-specific practice, the authors question a domain-independent account of expertise based on deliberate practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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