Psychological profiles and emotional regulation characteristics of women engaged in risk-taking sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the psychological profiles and emotional regulation characteristics of women involved in risk-taking sports. The research sample (N=180) consisted of three groups of women engaged in: (1) non-risk sports (N=90); (2) risk-taking sports for leisure purposes (N=53); or (3) risk-taking sports as professionals (N=37). Each participant completed five questionnaires, the Sensation Seeking Scale, the Bem Sex Role Inventory, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Risk & Excitement Inventory, and the Toronto Alexithymia Scale. The results revealed significant differences between the groups' profiles. Of particular interest are the differences that exist between the profiles of Group 2 (escape profile, masculine gender identity, and high scores on sensation seeking, impulsivity, alexithymia) and Group 3 (compensation profile, androgynous gender identity, average score on sensation seeking, and low scores on impulsivity, alexithymia). We propose that the professional woman might be considered a model for preventing destructive risk-taking behaviors.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".