An examination of psychological momentum in alpine ski racing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate psychological momentum (PM) in giant slalom (GS) alpine ski racing. PM is defined by Adler (1981) as a bidirectional concept, affecting the probability of winning or losing as a function of the preceding event. Koehler and Conley (1993) suggested that PM may only exist in tasks involving a large psychological component, high level of arousal and expert performance. Alpine ski racing fits this description. Although PM is a term commonly heard in sport settings, previous research has either failed to find a relationship between PM and winning (Koehler & Vergin, 2000) or to control for ability (Gayton and Very, 1993; Vergin 2000). Based on the Taylor & Demick model (1994), it was hypothesized that racers would gain positive momentum if they placed above their season average ranking on the first run (R1) and above on their second (R2). The opposite was expected to occur when racers placed below their average on R1 (i.e., negative momentum). International Ski Federation (FIS) archival race data of the top-thirty male and female racers (FIS Points list) in the 2006 – 2007 season were used in the analysis, to control for ability. Pearson correlations and a chi-squared test were used to test both hypotheses; all results were insignificant (? = .05). Possible reasons for insignificant results may include positive inhibition (Vergin, 2000) and regression to the mean. Based on these results the authors suggested that PM is a cognitive illusion that is accepted due to a memory bias resulting in a tendency for individuals to remember streaks in 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 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) | 0.002 | 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".