The Effect of Skill Level on Darts Throwers’ Use of Different Mental Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological SkillsDarts Throwers Elite Beginner Background: In recent years sports psychologists, coaches and athletes have paid a greater focus of attention to mental wellbeing and psychological skills.The purpose of this study was to investigate which psychological skills are important to two levels of skills among Darts players, namely; elite and beginner.Method: The sample consisted of 24 elite and 24 beginner Darts throwers.In order to gain insight into Darts throwing, beginner Darts players attended a national-championshipsimulated competition.Both elite and beginner players also completed the Ottawa Mental Skill Questionnaire.Results: Independent t-test results showed that there was a significant difference just in basic psychiatric skills between the beginner and elite Darts throwers (p<0.05).Nevertheless, there is no statistically significant difference in Ottawa's mental skills, psychosomatic skills and cognitive skills between beginner and elite Darts throwers (p>0.05).Conclusion: Results revealed differences between elite and beginner Darts players in foundation mental skills and commitment and mental practice subscales.Furthermore, results showed that for the commitment skill, elite and beginner Darts throwers were at the highest and lowest level respectively.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".