MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2613213419 · doi:10.1080/21520704.2017.1326429

Application of an innovative performance demand model with canoe slalom athletes and their coach

2017· article· en· W2613213419 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan R. Males, Joanne Hudson, John Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Psychology in Action · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAdventure Sports and Sensation Seeking
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesTeamworkPsychologyApplied psychologyCompetition (biology)Process (computing)CoachingSport psychologyManagementComputer sciencePhysical therapyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe how we used the newly developed Performance Demand Model (PDM) with a canoe slalom coach and three junior athletes preparing for the Junior World Championships. The PDM encourages athletes to think of performance as a process and identifies the psychological demands that must be met before, during, and after competition. It focuses on four Psychological Fundamentals: Mastery Motivation; Decision Making; Execution; and Teamwork, each grounded in Reversal Theory. This article discusses how coaches and athletes applied and benefitted from using the PDM and offers lessons learned for its future use by practitioners.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport Psychology in ActionSame topicAdventure Sports and Sensation SeekingFrench-language works237,207