MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076119232 · doi:10.1080/10413200008404220

Catastrophizing and pain perception in sport participants

2000· article· en· W2076119232 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Applied Sport Psychology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPain catastrophizingRuminationPsychologyLearned helplessnessAthletesPhysical therapyClinical psychologyPain perceptionConfirmatory factor analysisChronic painCognitionMedicineStructural equation modelingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.295 · 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