Exploring the pertinence of applied sport psychology in masters sport: A case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological enhancement are useful and effective practices with younger, high-performance athletes (Weinberg & Gould, 2015). However, applied sport researchers have yet to consider how Masters athletes (MAs) use psychological skills and with respect to multiple facets of their adult sport experience (Makepeace & Young, 2019). This study explored the use of psychological by a serious-minded female Masters dragon boat and canoe racer (Wendy: aged 62; regional, national, and international level competitor). Employing a semi-structured interview methodology, questions explored her use of mental skills relating to performance, the sporting experience, and managing a sporting lifestyle. Data were thematically analyzed (Braun & Clarke, 2006) deductively, using Weinberg and Gould's (2015) traditional mental skills catalogue, and inductively. Deductive results demonstrated use of skills pertaining to goal-setting, self-confidence, concentration, arousal regulation, and imagery. Wendy illustrated the importance, resultant outcomes, and various techniques associated with each skill. Inductive results revealed that past were important precursors to psychological use in Masters sport, especially when experiences included an enriched sport environment and adequate fitness levels. Wendy noted actionable psychological strategies for effectively maintaining a MA lifestyle (i.e., supportive relationships and communication; structuring) and framing sport as an outlet in her life. She also described a need for psychological supports among noting their underuse and many barriers. Overall, themes illustrate nuances not typically observed among younger cohorts. Findings show unique properties associated with certain psychological for MAs, while suggesting the importance of integrating psychological support services with MAs' training and competitive regimes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".