The Yips in Golf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether a model of two subtypes of yips is supported by evidence from a range of physiological, behavioral, and psychological measures. METHODS: Fifteen golfers who experience yips symptoms while putting (mean age 58.1 yr, SD 13.6 yr), and nine golfers with no yips symptoms (mean age 39.6 yr, SD 19.3 yr) were recruited. Participants completed a golf history questionnaire to determine their playing experience and the nature of any yips symptoms experienced. In experiment 1, participants performed a putting task while electromyographic data were recorded from the forearm flexors and extensors and biceps brachii, bilaterally. The task was performed in two sessions, under low-pressure and high-pressure experimental conditions. The high-pressure condition was intended to increase anxiety through the use of a monetary incentive, video-taping of performance, and the presence of a confederate who provided negative feedback. Participants' state of anxiety was assessed using a questionnaire before each of the experimental sessions. In experiment 2, participants completed a task that required the inhibition of an anticipated response. Their accuracy and ability to inhibit their response was determined. RESULTS: The golfers who experienced yips could be categorized according to whether they reported mainly movement-related symptoms (Type I) or anxiety-related symptoms (Type II). The Type I group exhibited greater muscle activity during putting and greater errors and less inhibition of the anticipated response task. The Type II group exhibited greater changes in cognitive anxiety and normal performance of the anticipated response task. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence in support of two yips subtypes. Type I is related to impaired movement initiation and execution, whereas Type II is related to performance anxiety.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".