Endurance athletes' coping function use during competitive suffering episodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endurance athletes who realise that they are falling short of important personal goals during competition are expected to experience competitive suffering. As a negative affective state with implications for performance and personal experiences, it is important to understand how endurance athletes cope with competitive suffering. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate differences in athletes' momentary coping function use over time during a competitive suffering episode. Twenty-six runners (mean age: 35.8 years) completed a 5-km running time trial that evoked an experience of competitive suffering using false failure-oriented feedback. Momentary assessments of goal attainment feelings and coping function use were completed immediately following the running time trial using video-mediated recall. Pooled time series analysis was used to predict coping function use across several points in time (i.e. earlier and later stages of a competitive suffering episode) and at different ratings of goal attainment feelings. Analyses revealed that negative feelings about goal attainment moderately predicted problem-focused coping use, and strongly predicted emotion-focused coping use. Although it was not predicted by goal attainment feelings, avoidance coping use was decreased over time throughout suffering episodes. Overall, this study supports propositions that the coping process is continually adapted to competitive demands and identifies the roles of distinct coping functions within the total coping effort.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".