Mindfulness, psychological well-being and doping in talented young high-school athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary aim of this research was to determine how mindfulness and psychological well-being relate to the propensity to use Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) in a sample of talented young athletes. A secondary aim was to determine how mindfulness and psychological well-being are related. This was a survey study with a quantitative research approach. South African Academy athletes at a high performance centre and competitive high school athletes from four private high schools participated in the survey. In the survey, two validated questionnaires (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire [FFMQ] and Ryff's Psychological Well-being Scale), and a self-constructed questionnaire to establish the propensity of athletes to use PEDs were employed. 346 athletes (208 boys, 138 girls) aged M=16.0, SD=1.4 years participated. There was a significant correlation (r=0.32, p=0.00) between overall mindfulness and psychological well-being as measured by the FFMQ and Ryff's Psychological Well-being Scale respectively. Two possible predictors of propensity to use PEDs were identified by means of logistic regression and cross tabulation. It is concluded that mindfulness and psychological well-being were inversely related to the propensity to use PEDs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".