MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026607299 · doi:10.22034/jhi.2018.86981

Relationship Between Mental Skills and Penalty Kicks Performance in the Elite Penalty Shooters in Iran’s Professional Football Teams

2018· article· en· W3026607299 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P Mokhtari, Mohammad VaezMousavi, Sepehr Heidari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Humanities Insights · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootballApplied psychologyPsychologyLeagueMental healthPsychiatryPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this research was to predict the elite penalty shooters performance in Iran’s professional football teams, depending on the level of their mental skills. Because of this, 20 penalty shooters of professional teams including the Iran’s national team and Persepolis team were chosen by patterning way as available. The mental skills that were studied in the research were evaluated by the Ottawa mental skill assessment tool questionnaire (OMSAT). For determining the operation of penalty shooters in the current research, the whole penalty shoots during the nine leagues from the side of the participating players have been considered in the study. Pearson’s test of correlation index were used to analyze the data. Results showed that among the basic mental skills, psychosomatic and cognitive skills have a meaningful correlation with success in penalty operation and success in the operation of penalty shooters of professional football teams can be predicted by the mental skills. Therefore, football coaches should pay attention to the improvement of players’ and specially penalty shooters’ mental skills and use the practicing programs of mental skill to improve the mental preparation of players and specially penalty shooters.

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)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Humanities InsightsSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207