Coming from behind: Psychological momentum in the National Hockey League
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of psychological momentum has been largely debated over the years in the sport psychology field and continues to be. Some studies have found an influence on performance due to the effect of psychological momentum either positive of negative and some have also found that there is none. In this study the authors use archival data from NHL seasons in order to determine whether psychological momentum has an influence on hockey at this level. An ability bias was controlled for by using teams deemed to be of equal ability due to their records against each other during the season in question. The "coming from behind" scenario was established to be an easily recordable precipitating event of psychological momentum and therefore games where the game was tied were investigated. Positive psychological momentum was deemed to have had an effect on the performance outcome of the team if the team who scored the tying goal also scored the winning goal. It was found that 70% of the time the team who scored the tying goal also scored the winning goal. This was found to be significant at the p=0.05 level (p=0.01). This is a significant finding for this area since we found a significant result from psychological momentum with having controlled for ability which has yet to be largely seen. Future research needs to examine possible differences between groups and individuals for psychological momentum.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".