MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014054705 · doi:10.15203/ciss_2020.004

Comparing psychological constructs in early specializing and non-specializing youth boys hockey players

2020· article· en· W3014054705 on OpenAlex
Alexandra Mosher, Joseph Baker, Jessica Fraser‐Thomas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Issues in Sport Science (CISS) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrait anxietyAnxietyPsychologyAthletesPersonalityTraitBig Five personality traitsClinical psychologyTest (biology)Developmental psychologySocial psychologyPsychiatryPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Athletes who specialize early often invest more into their sport from a young age, thus it has been suggested early specializers may feel greater pressures to perform, and may have higher levels of anxiety. This study focused on better understanding the differences between early specializers and non-specializers in terms of psychological constructs (competitive state anxiety, competitive trait anxiety, and personality). Participants were divided into groups based on a modified version of the DHAQ (Hopwood, Baker, MacMahon & Farrow, 2010). Independent sample t-tests were conducted to test between group differences. There were no significant differences between early specializers and non-specializers in scores of competitive state anxiety, competitive trait anxiety, and the big five personality traits. Results highlight the need for further investigation into differences between early specializers and non-specializers.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.277 · 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