Potentials and Pitfalls: Short-Term Involvement versus Long-Term Involvement in Sport Psychology with Olympic and Paralympic Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In some occasions, sport psychologists have a long time to prepare their athletes before important competitions. In other instances, the time to work with mental skills might be short. This article shares some of the experiences that two sport psychologists had during their work with Olympic and Paralympic athletes before and during the Olympic Games (2010) in Vancouver, Canada. In particular, the authors will share some of the potentials and pitfalls that both long- and short-term involvement by the sport psychologist might instigate. In short, there are both negative and positive aspects of having a long or short time during the preparation phase. However, we highlight that we prefer to work with athletes over several seasons, because the sport psychologist then has time to see the athletes in action and to help the athletes develop the necessary skills before important competitions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".