MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051379739 · doi:10.1515/1932-0191.1066

The Effects of a Motivational General-Mastery Imagery Intervention on the Imagery Ability and Sport Confidence of Inter-Collegiate Golfers

2012· article· en· W2051379739 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Hammond, Melanie Gregg, Dennis Hrycaiko, Jennifer Mactavish, Adrienne Leslie‐Toogood

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical Activity · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityCanadian Sport Centre PacificUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyIntervention (counseling)AnxietySport psychologyMental imageBaseline (sea)Multiple baseline designGuided imageryApplied psychologyPhysical therapyCognitionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Motivational general-mastery imagery is described as imaging overcoming challenges in sport with confidence and control. Using a single-subject multiple baseline design three male inter-collegiate golfers completed the Motivational Imagery Ability Measure for Sport during baseline and post-intervention phases and completed the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2R prior to each competitive round. Golf scores were recorded at the conclusion of each competition. Participants engaged in six sessions of guided motivational general-mastery imagery training over a three-week period. The sport confidence of one participant significantly increased from baseline to intervention. Golf performance (measured by stroke average) of two participants improved. All participants showed improvement in their ability to use imagery and indicated the imagery training program was effective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.349 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations35
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Imagery Research in Sport and Physical ActivitySame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207