COPING STRATEGIES IN A COMPETITIVE SITUATION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY, USING AN ELITE WHEELCHAIR FENCING GROUP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores statistical differences between eight Coping Strategies in a competitive situation (Revaluation, Self-control, Social-Support, Direct Action, Aggressive Action, Denial, Distraction, Action Inhibition) and two Coping Dimensions (Engagement and Disengagement), according to control variables: Gender, Practicing Time, Application Moment (Before and After Competition). The best six wheelchair fencing athletes (Brazilian team), both sexes, between 18 and 31 years old, responded to the Balbinotti Coping Strategy Inventory for Athletes in a Competitive Situation (iB.ECASC-40). The main results indicate differences (p < .05) between means before competition (1) of Direct Action and Denial, controlling by Gender; (2) of Revaluation and Engagement, controlling by Practicing Time Variable. Furthermore, belonging to determined gender doesn’t set different profiles of coping strategies in this specific modality. Main conclusion: Brazilian top athletes in this modality use statistically the same (p > .05) main Coping Strategies before and after a competition, denoting a certain stability of this personality characteristic. Further studies with larger samples and other sports can offer other important findings related to Coping Strategies in competitive situation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".