Attentional Strategies During Rowing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This investigation explored the relationship between task intensity, competitive setting, and attentional strategy in collegiate rowers. Here, the associative-dissociative dimension of attentional focus is considered. Associative thoughts are task-related, whereas dissociative thoughts are not. Previous work has linked associative strategies with higher level performance, and higher intensities of exercise (i.e. those which exceed the ventilatory threshold). Male and female collegiate rowers (N = 298) completed three training sessions (one each at low, moderate, and high intensity) and two races (short and long distance). Results revealed that the higher the training intensity, the greater the degree of association. A greater degree of association was also observed in competition as opposed to training, and in short distance versus long distance races. There was no gender difference in attentional strategy. Finally, it was shown that the variation in attentional strategy was inversely proportional to exercise intensity. These findings support previous work examining the effect of task intensity on attentional focus [1], in a field based setting. Furthermore, new insight is offered regarding how competition interacts with intensity in this relationship.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".