MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056780250 · doi:10.2190/ic.32.2.e

Anxiety and the Influences of Flow, Trauma, and Fantasy Experiences on Dancers

2012· article· en· W2056780250 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paula Thomson, S. Victoria Jaque

Bibliographic record

VenueImagination Cognition and Personality · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFlow Experience in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia State University, NorthridgeYork University
KeywordsAnxietyPsychologyPanicFantasyClinical psychologyPanic disorderPopulationPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the psychological effects of anxiety on professional and pre-professional dancers ( n = 73), in particular the relationships between anxiety and flow, past traumatic events, and fantasy. Results demonstrated that anxiety was statistically related to increased age, total traumatic events, increased fantasy proneness, with no association to flow. All dancers experienced moderate-to-high global flow experiences, and 75.3% of the dancers endorsed high autotelic experiences (an ability to regularly transform potential threats into positive flow experiences). In a stepwise linear regression analysis, together past traumatic events and fantasy explained 19.4% of the variance for anxiety. Greater mean scores for total traumatic events and lower autotelic flow experiences were found in the dancers with pathological levels of anxiety. Since 23.3% of the dancers endorsed clinical levels of anxiety (panic), further understanding regarding panic and anxiety in a dancer population is recommended, specifically the predictive role fantasy proneness and past traumatic experiences may play in anxiety symptomatology.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · 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
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImagination Cognition and PersonalitySame topicFlow Experience in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207