On passion and sports fans: A look at football
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
Abstract The purpose of the present research was to test the applicability of the Dualistic Model of Passion (Vallerand et al., 2003 Vallerand, R. J., Blanchard, C. M., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Ratelle, C.Léonard, M. 2003. Les passions de l'âme: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 756–767. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) to being a sport (football) fan. Three studies provided support for this dualistic conceptualization of passion. Study 1 showed that harmonious passion was positively associated with adaptive behaviours (e.g. celebrate the team's victory), whereas obsessive passion was positively associated with maladaptive behaviours (e.g. risking losing one's job to go to a game). Study 2 used a short Passion Scale and showed that harmonious passion was positively related to the positive affective life of fans during the 2006 FIFA World Cup, psychological health (self-esteem and life satisfaction), and public displays of adaptive behaviours (e.g. celebrate the team's victory into the streets), whereas obsessive passion was predictive of maladaptive affective life (e.g. hating opposing teams' fans) and behaviours (e.g. mocking opposing teams' fans). Finally, Study 3 examined the role of obsessive passion as a predictor of partner's conflict that in turn undermined partner's relationship satisfaction. Overall, the present results provided support for the Dualistic Model of Passion. The conceptual and applied implications of the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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