MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978148220 · doi:10.1080/17461391.2019.1675768

Motivational patterns in persistent swimmers: A serial mediation analysis

2019· article· en· W2978148220 on OpenAlexaff
Diogo Teixeira, Luc G. Pelletier, Diogo Monteiro, Filipe Rodrigues, João Moutão, Daniel A. Marinho, Luí­s Cid

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Sport Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMediationAthletesPsychologyTask (project management)Set (abstract data type)Social psychologyDevelopmental psychologyApplied psychologyMedicinePhysical therapyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: The main objective of the present study was to examine the associations between coach‐created task‐involving climate and athletes’ intentions to continue practicing sport, through a serial mediation analysis that included basic psychological needs satisfaction (BPN), self‐determined motivation (SDM) and enjoyment. Methods: Seven‐hundred and ninety‐nine elite swimmers (450 males, 349 females; aged 12–22 years, M = 16.65, SD = 2.83) participated in the present study. Groups were created according to age, years of experience, and gender. Results: Serial mediation analysis provided support for the proposed model where BPN's and enjoyment represent the most important mediators between task‐involving climate and athletes’ intentions to continue sport practice. Conclusion: Enjoyment stands out as the most relevant predictor of intention to persist and as a significant mediator in the relation between task‐involvement climate, BPN, SDM, and long‐term sports practice. The task‐involving climate created by coaches appears to set in motion a sequence where the satisfaction of basic needs and SDM lead to more enjoyment and increased persistence among young athletes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Sport ScienceSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207