MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994915069 · doi:10.9734/bjesbs/2016/19977

The Effect of Psychological Support and Mental Training on Anxiety Regulation of Injured Tunisian Athletes

2015· article· en· W2994915069 on OpenAlexaff
Sabeur Hamrouni, Jaouad Alem, Ines Bouguerra, Wafa Dhweyeb, Sylvain Baert

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Education Society & Behavioural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports injuries and prevention
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesAnxietyPsychologyClinical psychologyTraining (meteorology)Mental healthPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of our study consisted in testing the importance of psychological support and mental training for Tunisian injured athletes on the enhancement of their emotional and behavioral reactions to anxiety to be reinjured.A total of N= 48 Tunisian male and female athletes, most of them professional sports players and having knee, shoulder or ankle injuries were recruited for the purpose of our study.The sample was divided into 2 groups: An experimental group of 44 injured athletes were subjected to psychological support and mental training-relaxation program 5 weeks long, and a control group of 44 injured athletes without psychological and mental training.To assess the overall impact of emotional states of the injured athletes we used the Profile of Mood Original Research ArticleState Questionnaire (POMS) and a 10 cm self-rating scale.Our findings showed that 8 week of psychological assistance and coaching program in the form of motor imagery and relaxation contribute to decrease in anxiety among the injured Tunisian 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Education Society & Behavioural ScienceSame topicSports injuries and preventionFrench-language works237,207