MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2937324461 · doi:10.1080/02640414.2019.1597827

Time courses of emotions experienced after a mountain ultra-marathon: Does emotional intelligence matter?

2019· article· en· W2937324461 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Nicolas, Guillaume Martinent, Guillaume Y. Millet, Virginie Bagneux, Marvin Gaudino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sports Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHappinessAngerPsychologyEmotional intelligenceTrait anxietyTraitAnxietyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examined the time courses of emotions in sport settings (anxiety, dejection, anger, happiness, excitement) experienced by mountain ultra-marathon (MUM) runners within the month following a demanding MUM race and the role of emotional intelligence (EI) in these time courses. A six-wave one-month longitudinal design was used with one measurement point within two days before the race to measure EI and five time points within the month following the race to assess emotions experienced among a sample of 29 runners. Results of multilevel growth curve analyses showed significant linear decreases of dejection and anxiety and a significant linear increase of anger. EI was related to the intercept (level at the end of the MUM race) of happiness, excitement and dejection. Moreover the interaction of EI with time was associated with happiness, excitement and anger. This means that high and low emotional intelligent runners exhibited distinct trajectories of emotional intelligence within the month following the MUM race. Indeed, trait-EI appeared to have a protective role against stress process leading to emotional adjustment within the recovery period following an ultra-endurance event. As such, consultants and coaches could conduct specific program over the sport season designed to enhance trait-EI of MUM runners.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sports SciencesSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207