MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047282753 · doi:10.3200/genp.131.4.426-437

Differences in Attentional Set Between Athletes and Nonathletes

2004· article· en· W2047282753 on OpenAlex
Jim McAuliffe

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

VenueThe Journal of General Psychology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesSet (abstract data type)PsychologyCognitive psychologyApplied psychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine if the ability to set attention is different between athletes and nonathletes. University volleyball players were compared with nonathletes on a spatial cuing task similar to that of C. L. Folk, R. W. Remington, and J. C. Johnston (1992). As expected, both groups showed evidence of entering into a specific attentional set because attentional cuing effects were found only when cues and targets shared a task-relevant feature (onset or color). In addition, the cuing effects when the cues matched the targets were greater for the athletes than for the nonathletes. The results are discussed in terms of the orienting of attention and athletic performance.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.301 · 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