Athletes’ imagery use from a team-level perspective and team cohesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While a positive relationship has been established between imagery and team-level constructs (e.g. collective-efficacy and cohesion), those studies have examined imagery from an individual-level perspective (e.g. “I imagine myself being mentally tough”). Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to explore the relationship of athlete imagery use from a team-level perspective to team cohesion. Interdependent sport team athletes (N = 284) completed the Group Environment Questionnaire in order to measure team cohesion, and the Sport Imagery Questionnaire-Team Sport which was modified from the original Sport Imagery Questionnaire to assess the frequency of athlete's imagery use from a team-level perspective. Multiple regression analysis revealed that motivation general-mastery imagery was significantly related to the cohesion dimensions of group integration-task (21%), individual attractions to the group-task (11%), and individual attractions to the group-social (13%). Findings suggest that motivational imagery from a team-level perspective should be emphasised on sport teams in order to increase team cohesion.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".