Eficácia adaptativa em atletas: desenvolvimento de instrumento através do ESEM e TRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esta pesquisa teve como objetivo desenvolver a segunda versão da Escala Diagnóstica Adaptativa para Atletas (EDAO-AR-A), que avalia a eficácia da adaptação de atletas a partir de duas subescalas Afetivo-Relacional (A-R) e Produtividade (Pr), e avaliar propriedades psicométricas da escala, dos itens e características dos participantes. A amostra foi composta por 374 atletas (22,8±7,7; 53,2% homens). Através dos procedimentos estatísticos: Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, coeficiente alfa de Cronbach e Modelo de créditos parciais (MCP) verificou-se que ambas as subescalas avaliam a eficácia adaptativa de acordo com três fatores: Foco no eu, Foco no outro e Foco na situação problema, com índices desejáveis de precisão e estrutura fatorial. O MCP revelou itens com dificuldade baixa para amostra estudada e índices de ajustes adequados (Infit/Outfit). Os resultados sugerem que o EDAO-AR-A é uma medida adequada da eficácia adaptativa em atletas.Palavras chave: adaptação, escala, esporte, Teoria de Resposta ao Item, análise de equação estrutural.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".