The Influence of Self-Talk on Learning Achievement and Self Confidence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine the influence of self-talk on badminton skill, specifically in clear lob learning achievement and self confidence. It was carried out on 64 beginning badminton athletes aged between 10-12 years (mean=10.8), consisting of 32 boys and 32 girls from badminton schools in Bandung, Indonesia. The subjects were divided into three experimental groups and one control group by random assignment. Before getting the treatment, all participants did a badminton clear lob test, then all experimental groups were given the following self-talk treatment (instructional, motivational, and combination of them), and badminton clear lob instructions. The result of data analysis showed that (1) self-talk has a significant influence on badminton clear lob learning achievement and self-confidence, (2) combination of instructional self talk and motivational self talk significantly enhances badminton clear lob learning achievement and self-confidence than instructions and motivational self-talk only, (3) instructional self-talk significantly enhance badminton clear lob learning achievement than motivational self talk, and (4) motivational self-talk significantly enhance self-confidence than instructional self-talk. In general, all experimental groups showed significant enhancement of badminton clear lob learning achievement and self-confidence than control group.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it