Effect of Preperformance Routine on Advanced Swimmers’ Performance and Motor Efficiency, Self-Efficacy, and Idiosyncratic Emotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of a learned preperformance routine (PPR) with an intuitively developed one before a simulation race on advanced swimmers’ speed and motor efficiency, as well as self-efficacy and emotional regulation. In total, 46 National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I swimmers were stratified to either the control (intuitively developed PPR) or the PPR condition, which included four instructional sessions aimed at developing a PPR. A simulated competitive race was organized before and after the intervention. For each simulation, speed and motor efficiency were measured during the race, and self-efficacy and emotions, after the completion of the race. Nonsignificant effects were revealed for speed, motor efficiency, and self-efficacy following the intervention. However, performing a learned PPR prior to racing significantly influenced the swimmers’ emotional state. These results provide some support for the effect of a PPR on emotional regulation prior to a swimming race.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".