Extra Version and Neuroticism in Team Sport Participants, Individual Sport Participants, and Nonparticipants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scores on Extraversion and on Neuroticism as measured by the Eysenck Personality Inventory were compared for 90 undergraduate team sport participants, individual sport participants, and nonparticipants (43 men, 47 women, M age = 20.3 yr.). From past research and Eysenck's biological theory of personality, it was hypothesized that sport participants would score higher on Extraversion and lower on Neuroticism than nonparticipants, and that team participants would score higher on Extraversion and perhaps higher on Neuroticism than individual sport participants. By comparing scores for students in first year and final year, it was also investigated whether pre-existing personality differences drew people to sport (the gravitational hypothesis) or whether personality changed as a function of sport participation (the developmental hypothesis). The main findings were that team participants scored higher on Extraversion than both individual sport participants and nonparticipants, and that test scores did not change over time, supporting the gravitational hypothesis for Extraversion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".