MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009956243 · doi:10.5539/jel.v9n2p160

Investigation of Mental Toughness Levels of Individuals Who Actively Do Sports: A Sample of the City of Elazig

2020· article· en· W3009956243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yakup Kılıç, Eyyup Yıldırım

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicProblem Solving Skills Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental toughnessAthletesTurkishPsychologyMarital statusSample (material)PopulationClinical psychologyApplied psychologyPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to investigate the mental toughness levels of individuals who actively do sports in the face of events they face during sportive performances. Mental toughness is among the psychological characteristics to achieve the highest performance by athletes and coaches. Mental toughness is also important in terms of evaluating the performances of athletes and support their development. The population of the study consisted of individuals who actively do sports in the city of Elazig while the sample of the study consisted of 156 active athletes, who were chosen by the simple random sampling method. As the data collection tools, the personal information form, which was created by the researchers, and the Mental Toughness Scale (MTS), which was developed by Madrigal et al. (2013) and adapted into Turkish by Nevzat Erdogan by 2016, were used. In conclusion, of the athletes who participated in the study, it was observed that male athletes had higher levels of mental toughness compared to female athletes according to the gender variable. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in terms of the variables of marital status, age, educational status, sports experience and sports branch.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicProblem Solving Skills DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207