Catastrophizing and pain perception in sport participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were conducted to examine the relation between catastrophizing and pain in sport participants. Study 1 compared the factor structure of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS; Sullivan et al., 1995) in a sample of 97 individuals who reported engaging in regular sporting activity and 140 sedentary individuals. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that, in both sport and sedentary samples, a three factor solution, comprising rumination, magnification, and helplessness provided the best fit to the data. Study 2 examined differences in pain perception in 54 (28 women, 26 men) varsity athletes and 54 (27 women, 27 men) sedentary controls who participated in an experimental pain procedure. Participants completed the PCS prior to immersing one arm in ice water for one minute. Athletes reported less pain than sedentary individuals, and men reported less pain than women. For both athlete and sedentary groups, catastrophizing was a significant predictor of pain experience. Regression analyses revealed that although catastrophizing accounted for differences in pain perception between men and women
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".