MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015819745 · doi:10.1080/10413200802582813

The Frequency and Perceived Effectiveness of Images Used to Build, Maintain, and Regain Confidence

2009· article· en· W2015819745 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lindsay Ross-Stewart, Sandra E. Short

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Sport Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyAthletesSelf-confidenceSport psychologyPerceptionApplied psychologyBasketballMental imageConfidence intervalDescriptive statisticsTest (biology)Social psychologyCognitionStatisticsPhysical therapyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This exploratory study investigated the content of the images athletes use to build, maintain, and regain their confidence. It also investigated their perceptions of the effectiveness of images for these confidence sub-functions. Participants were 142 college student athletes (60% female) from the central north area of the United States or Canada. Participants completed a modified version of the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ; Hall, Stevens, & Paivio, 2005 Hall, C., Stevens, D. and Paivio, A. 2005. The Sport Imagery Questionnaire: Test manual, Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. [Google Scholar]). Data were analyzed using a repeated measures design at the subscale level, and using descriptive statistics at the item level. For imagery use, there was a significant main effect for imagery subscales, confidence sub-functions, and a significant interaction between the imagery subscales and confidence sub-functions (p < .05). For imagery effectiveness, there were significant main effects for both imagery subscales and confidence sub-functions. At the individual item level, analyses revealed that athletes used different images depending on whether they were building, maintaining, or regaining confidence, and that the images that were the most used were not always perceived to be the most effective. In general, the results provide sport psychology researchers and practitioners with a better understanding of the imagery-confidence relationship. The item level results are particularly meaningful for sport psychology practitioners because they indicate which images athletes used and perceived to be the most effective for building, maintaining, and regaining confidence.

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 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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Sport PsychologySame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207