Relationships between Risk Events, Personality Traits, and Risk Perception of Adolescent Athletes in Sports Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Personality traits have close relationships with risky behaviors in various domains, including physical education, competition, and athletic training. It is yet little known about how trait personality dimensions associate with risk events and how vital factors, such as risk perception, could affect the happening of risk events in adolescent athletes. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the prediction of risk events by regression analysis with dimensions of personality, risk perception and sports, relations between risk events, risk perception, and the facets of the personality dimensions via data collecting from 664 adolescent athletes aged 13-18 years (male 364, female 300). Secondary intent is to assess school-specific levels of training risks among sports schools, regular schools, and sports and education integrated schools. The results show that psychology events are the strongest predicted by personality traits, risk perception, and sports, followed by injury and nutrition. Emotionality has the most significant positive correlation with risk events, while other traits have a significant negative correlation with risk events, except agreeableness. The integration schools are more conducive to the healthy development of adolescent athletes' personalities. Moreover, the research indicates that sports training can strengthen the development directions of different personality characteristics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".