Passion in Sport: A Look at Determinants and Affective Experiences
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
Based on the Dualistic Model of Passion (Vallerand et al., 2003), a sequence involving the determinants and affective experiences associated with two types of passion (harmonious and obsessive) toward sport was proposed and tested. This sequence posits that high levels of sport valuation and an autonomous personality orientation lead to harmonious passion, whereas high levels of sport valuation and a controlled personality orientation facilitate obsessive passion. In turn, harmonious passion is expected to lead to positive affective experiences in sport but to be either negatively related or unrelated to negative affective experiences. Conversely, obsessive passion is hypothesized to be positively related to negative affective experiences in sport but to be either negatively related or unrelated to positive affective experiences. Results of three studies conducted with recreational and competitive athletes involved in individual and team sports provided support for the proposed integrative sequence. These findings support the role of passion in sport and pave the way to new 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it