MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152009201 · doi:10.1177/0145445503259394

Experimental Studies of Psychological Interventions With Athletes in Competitions

2005· article· en· W2152009201 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavior Modification · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesPsychologyPsychological interventionSport psychologyApplied psychologyInclusion (mineral)Clinical psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past three decades, behavioral practitioners have been applying techniques to improve the performance of athletes. To what extent are interventions, designed to improve the directly and reliably measured performance of athletes in competitions, based on experimental demonstrations of efficacy? That is the question addressed by this review. All issues of three behavioral journals and seven sport psychology journals, from 1972 through 2002, were examined for articles that addressed the above question. Fifteen articles were found that met the inclusion criteria, yielding an average of only one published study every 2 years. This article reviews those articles, discusses reasons for the dearth of research in this area, and makes recommendations for much needed future research.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.424
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.586
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.080 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it