The relationship between self-efficacy and performance within a continuous educational gymnastics routine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-efficacy has been shown to be related to sport performance in a significant and reciprocal fashion over one season and across repeated trials. The present study investigated the self-efficacy–performance relationship within one continuous (i.e. uninterrupted) sport task. Forty-seven participants had their self-efficacy and performance measured concurrently five times within one educational gymnastic routine. A path analysis revealed that self-efficacy was not a significant predictor of performance, nor was performance a significant predictor of self-efficacy. Previous performance was, however, a significant predictor of subsequent performance, and previous self-efficacy was a significant predictor of subsequent self-efficacy. Although these findings were inconsistent with previous trial-to-trial self-efficacy–performance studies, this may be due to a notion of “overconfidence” developed as a result of the routines created by the participants in an educational gymnastics course. The results further raise an interesting issue of whether the previously established reciprocal self-efficacy–performance relationship remains recursive when tasks vary within one performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".