The Impact of an Online Sport Psychology Intervention for Middle-Distance Runners: Should Self-Regulation or Mindfulness Be Prioritized?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine the impact of an online self-regulation intervention (SI) and mindfulness intervention (MI) in improving exercise-induced-pain (EIP) management, mental performance (i.e., SI and MI), and mental health. A sample of 16 middle-distance runners who participated in an 8-week SI or MI was purposefully selected based on the participants’ high, moderate, and low pre–post intervention evolution scores. Findings, which were generated by performing a codebook thematic analysis, suggest that both the SI and MI positively impacted EIP management, mental performance, and mental health. EIP literacy enabled the participants from both interventions to more effectively manage EIP. Furthermore, screening for mental illness symptoms and referring athletes in a timely manner to appropriate mental health practitioners was perceived as essential for them to receive the care and support they needed. Finally, a hybrid delivery format may be the most effective when providing online sport psychology interventions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".