MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972871282 · doi:10.1080/21520704.2019.1656315

Coaches' Evaluations of the Utility of the Basic Performance Demand Model for Sport

2019· article· en· W2972871282 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan R. Males, Joanne Hudson, John Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Psychology in Action · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRowingEliteCoachingPsychologyAthletesApplied psychologyPersonalizationElite athletesField hockeyProcess (computing)TrainerFootballPhysical therapyComputer sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Performance Demand Model for Sport (PDM; Males, Hudson, & Kerr) is based on four psychological fundamentals: mastery motivation, decision making, execution, and teamship. Four elite coaches from canoe slalom, rugby sevens, rowing, and athletics evaluated the utility of the PDM model and later trialed it with elite athletes. Two sets of semi-structured interviews provided subjective statements that generally: (a) supported PDM process-based principles and (b) post-field trials, endorsed the PDM for elite athlete use. With one exception, coaches used the PDM with athletes in different ways, recommending customization, simplification, and a focus on specific training contexts to enhance utility.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.318 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport Psychology in ActionSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207