Deliberate imagery practice: the development of imagery skills in competitive athletes
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 aim of this study was to examine mental imagery within the context of the deliberate practice framework. Altogether, 159 athletes from one of three different competitive standards (recreational, provincial and national) completed the Deliberate Imagery Practice Questionnaire, which was designed for the present study to assess the athletes' perceptions of the importance of imagery along the three deliberate practice dimensions of relevancy, concentration and enjoyment. The results indicated that national athletes perceived imagery to be more relevant to performing than recreational athletes. In addition, athletes of a higher standard (i.e. provincial and national) reported using more imagery in a recent typical week and they had accumulated significantly more hours of imagery practice across their athletic career than recreational athletes. Finally, the relationships among the dimensions of deliberate practice did not lend conclusive support to either the original conception of deliberate practice or a sports-specific framework of 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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