Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, so-called mental health issues were exposed at the Tokyo Olympics. Yet the term “performance anxiety” was not in vogue in the media as it had been in the past. The emphasis was now on mental health in clinical terms. Although I acknowledge the work in this area being done in clinical psychology, I am not including this approach but rather provide a complementary one rooted in philosophy. An interpretation of experiences working with anxiety rather than with mental health issues is also possible by considering psychological perspectives that are derived from phenomenology and existentialism. This interdisciplinary conceptualization contributes to the concept of performance anxiety by providing a more detailed theoretical account of individual subjective experience involving a relational perspective on the nature of both positive and negative anxiety and its metaphorical implications for creative performances, be they musical, athletic, or any kind of performance. Performance planning is ultimately an indeterminate activity associated with negative and positive anxiety over time, because such preparation cannot predict the exact nature of a performer’s emergent, indeterminate self during any performance. Yet this “unfixed” emergent self is also connected to the preparatory self in that it is the self that also prepares the performance and is (hopefully) successfully blended into an emergent and thus indeterminate self. It can emerge as an earned attribute of positive anxiety and receptivity to risk-taking creativity and new understandings of anxiety based on experience and self.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".