MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2795092697 · doi:10.1123/jcsp.2017-0001

Perceived Importance of Selected Psychological Strategies Among Elite Malaysian Athletes

2018· article· en· W2795092697 on OpenAlexaff
Vellapandian Ponnusamy, Michelle Guerrero, Jeffrey J. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Sport Psychology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLikert scalePsychologyAthletesElite athletesEliteRating scaleScale (ratio)Applied psychologySport psychologyFunction (biology)Social psychologyClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Elite Malaysian athletes ( N = 179) from integrated and segregated sports rated the perceived importance of eight psychological strategies for improving performance using two different response format methods, a Likert rating scale and forced-choice. A forced-choice procedure produced better discrimination among the skills than a Likert rating scale procedure. We also found that the ratings of importance differed as a function of sport type and gender. Specifically, athletes in integrated sports placed more importance on setting team goals and clarifying roles/responsibilities compared to athletes in segregated sports. At the same time, participants in segregated sports viewed setting personal goals, psych-up strategies, and imagery as more important for performance than those in integrated sports. Significant interaction effects indicated that, within segregated sports, females rated positive self-talk higher than males, but communication skills were rated higher by males than by females.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.375 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Sport PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207