L’effondrement de performance, la léthargie et la performance de pointe chez les joueurs de golf universitaires québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le monde sportif comprend mal la définition et le fonctionnement de l’effondrement de performance puisque les entraîneurs et athlètes l’associent trop souvent à une contre-performance. En effet, depuis l’émergence de ce sujet en 1981 (Mesagno & Hill 2013), plusieurs concepts ont évolué et plusieurs membres de la communauté scientifique se questionnent toujours quant à la bonne définition de ce sujet. Encore aujourd’hui, la définition de l’effondrement de performance varie selon les scientifiques étudiant ce phénomène. De plus, il est désormais connu que les théories de l’attention sont les causes menant à l’effondrement de performance chez les athlètes (Hill, Hanton, Matthews, & Fleming, 2010b). L’objectif de cette étude est donc de définir l’effondrement de performance, la léthargie et la performance de pointe du point de vue des athlètes, de recenser et de différencier les pensées, les sentiments, les sensations, et les émotions ainsi que de recenser les stratégies mentales utilisées par les participants afin de contrer l’effondrement de performance. Une douzaine d’entrevues semi-structurées et une analyse inductive (Blais & Martineau, 2006) des témoignages des golfeurs ont permis de répondre à ces objectifs. La technique choisie pour l’analyse des verbatims est la triangulation multi-analyste. L’analyse des résultats permet de constater une divergence quant à la définition émise par les golfeurs en ce qui concerne l’effondrement de performance, la léthargie et la performance de pointe. De manière générale, les athlètes semblent confondre le phénomène de l’effondrement de performance avec la léthargie et une mauvaise performance normale. Ce projet de recherche est à propos, car les retombés permettront de guider les entraîneurs et les athlètes afin d’optimiser leur préparation mentale afin de contrer l’effondrement de performance et la léthargie. De plus, peu d’études ont été faites du point de vue qualitatif ainsi qu’en donnant la parole aux acteurs principaux touchés par ces phénomènes. Grâce aux résultats de cette étude, il sera possible de guider les entraîneurs et les athlètes dans le but d’optimiser leur préparation mentale afin de contrer l’effondrement de performance et la léthargie. De plus, la création des courbes de performance est un atout majeur pour ce projet car il illustre pour la première fois les différences entre l’effondrement de performance, la léthargie, la performance normale et la performance de pointe. Sport’s world sometimes misunderstands the definition and the mechanism of choking, slumping and the flow in sport. Most of the time, coaches and athletes use these terms to talk about any inferior sport performance. Since the mid 80’s, many concepts and definitions have been developed around these two subjects and researchers are still questioning about the differences between choking and slumping in sport. Even though many models were developed to help athletes to reach their full potential, very few studies gave strategies to overcome a slump or a choke. The goals of this study are to give athletes the opportunity to talk about their feelings, sensations and thoughts when they had a choking or slumping event. In fact, the aim of this study is to know more about the knowledge of the athletes concerning their own definition of choking, slumping and the flow in sport. A qualitative/inductive methodology was used, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 elite golfers in four different universities until empiric saturation was reached with the participants answers. The results will be interpreted linked with Hill’s researches (2010a; 2010b; 2013; 2013) on choking in sports and Taylor’s (1988) review on slump. Using triangulation, data will provide new concepts and definitions of choking, slumping and the flow in sport. Results show that athletes cannot give a definition of choking with the same criterions as Hill’s researches. Athletes are not able to make the difference between a choking or a slumping event, which are totally different. Also, most of athletes interviewed mentioned that they experienced anger, frustration and sadness when they had a choking event in the past. Furthermore, athletes are not able the give a clear example of a choking or slumping event, because they have difficulties analysing their own performances based on their scores or feeling during tournaments. The main result of this study is the creation of performances curves showing variations of performance (normal performance, drop, peak, slump and choking episode). This study should give tools for coaches and athletes about analyzing correctly their performances. Also, it should provide mental coaches and sport psychologists proofs that athletes can’t give a proper definition of choking and slumping in sport, which should lead to better teaching and better coaching. Finally, the creation of the performance curves is the main highlight of this project. This is the first time that normal performance, choking, slumping and peak performance are illustrated to give a better understanding to athletes and coaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".