Examining the relationship between passion and perceptions of cohesion in athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship of harmonious and obsessive passion to perceptions of task and social cohesion in team sport athletes. Participants were 370 competitive (N=252) and recreational (N=118) athletes ranging from 18- to 28-years-old (Mage=20.20, SD=1.52) from a wide variety of team sports. Participants completed the Passion Scale (Vallerand et al., 2003) and the Group Environment Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985). A MANOVA revealed that competitive athletes were more passionate and had higher perceptions of cohesion than did recreational athletes. Multiple regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between both harmonious and obsessive passion and both task (ATG-T, GI-T) and social (ATG-S, GI-S) cohesion. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed pertaining to the importance of harmonious and obsessive passion in athletes and perceptions of cohesion in competitive and recreational sport.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".