Psychological Status During and After the Preparation of a Long-distance Triathlon Event in Amateur Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International Journal of Exercise Science 14(5): 134-148, 2021. Preparation for an endurance event among amateur athletes requires a major commitment on their part. Knowing amateur athletes’ psychological characteristics during a training period should be a priority for coaches and athletes. The aim of our longitudinal study was to characterize the psychological profile of amateur athletes over a training period of six months prior to and after a long-distance triathlon. Thirty-two amateur athletes (13 females; 19 males; 1.5±1.3 years of experience) were recruited for this observational study. All participants (39±9.9 years old; weighs 73±12.9 kg; measure 172±10.2 cm) underwent a physical fitness assessment pre- and post 6-months of training, a monthly psychological questionnaire battery assessing mood, positive and negative affect, passion and motivation and, for some participants (n=5), an interview post event. Positive emotions increased until the sixth month, from 38.1±22.0 to 54.3±7.2 (Z=3.49, p<0.001, r=0.80). Participants were more harmonious (29.0±3.0) than obsessive (13.0±1.0) with their triathlon's passion (Z=4.91, p<0.001, r=0.85). Participants felt a high level of intrinsic motivation (15.9±1.76) and a low level of external motivation (4.9±1.08) about their triathlon training (p<0.05). The vigor score is the only sub scale that significantly changed from the 1st to the 6th month of training, and ranged between 21.4±10.6 and 28.1±4.1 (Z=2.0, p=0.046, r=0.46). This longitudinal observational study is the first to have explored athletes' psychological and emotional parameters over a training period of six months prior to a long-distance triathlon event and one month after. Thus, specific interventions and mental training can be structured around these important milestones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".