Effects of a season‐long PST program on gymnastic performance and on psychological skill development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Findings are reported of an evaluation of the effects of a 10‐month PST program on performance and psychological indicators. Ten nationally ranked female gymnasts (M = 12 years old) followed a psychological skills training (PST) program for half an hour per week. The five‐step intervention consisted of relaxation, self‐talk, goal setting, focusing, and visualization. Performance scores were obtained using scores and rankings during two consecutive competitive seasons. The OMSAT‐3 © was used to individually assess 11 psychological indicators (Durand‐Bush, 1995). Data were recorded before the intervention and after every step of the intervention, during the course of the competitive seasons. Repeated ANOVAs as well as a practical assessment of the data were completed. The PST program appeared to be most effective on imagery skills, relaxation, activation, focusing, and refocusing. On three events out of four (bars, beam, floor), the 10 gymnasts progressed 5% more than 11 other gymnasts who did not follow this PST program.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".