Discriminating Mental Skills among Adolescent Elite and Competitive Soccer and Volleyball Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Mental skills are defined as a set of trainable mental abilities and methods that are held to underpin successful learning and performance. Objectives. The aim of the present research was to study and compare the mental skills of adolescent elite and competitive volleyball and soccer players. Methods. The sample consisted of 100 players (54 elite soccer, 13 elite volleyball, 18 competitive soccer and 15 competitive volleyball) selected via a purposive sampling method. Data were collected using the Ottawa Mental Skills Assessment Tool-2 (OMSAT-2). Results. Elite and competitive volleyball players had higher scores for stress reactions than elite soccer players. In addition, elite soccer players had more self-confidence than competitive soccer and volleyball players. Also, competitive volleyball players had higher levels of fear than elite soccer players. There were no other significant differences in mental skills between soccer and volleyball players. Conclusion. It seems that adolescent volleyball players stand in more immediate need of learning strategies for coping with stress, fear and self-confidence management than soccer players. Results are discussed in terms of an athlete’s levels, the nature and characteristics of the sport and choking during performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".