MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Where, When, and Why Young Athletes Use Imagery

2007· article· en· W1986148560 on OpenAlex
Krista J. Munroe‐Chandler, Craig Hall, Graham J. Fishburne, Leisha Strachan

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 Quarterly for Exercise and Sport · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Advanced EducationWestern UniversityUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesPerspective (graphical)PsychologyYoung adultDevelopmental psychologyCognitionPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to investigate young athletes' imagery use from a developmental perspective. The participants were 110 male and female athletes competing in both team and individual sports. They represented four different age cohorts (i.e., 7-8, 9-10, 11-12, and 13-14 years). Sixteen focus groups, two for each age category and gender, were used as the method of data collection. The findings indicated "where," "when, " and "why" young athletes use imagery and how imagery use changes as children move from early childhood through to early adolescence. Overall, results revealed that all age cohorts reported using imagery in both training and competition and for both cognitive and motivational purposes. The present research also found support for studying imagery use by young athletes from a developmental perspective.

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)0.003
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.327 · 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