Efficacy beliefs and motivational dynamics in early-season collegiate swimming relays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the moderating effects of efficacy beliefs and perceived indispensability on individual efforts in early-season collegiate swimming relays. Effort changes from swimmers’ individual best times to relay-leg times were compared as a function of relay members’ relative strength (i.e., fastest or slowest) and serial position (i.e., first or last leg). Participants ( N = 199) were collegiate swimmers in 200, 400, or 800-yard freestyle relays at fall invitational meets providing 260 cases included for analysis. Individual lifetime best times, adjusted relay times, rank, serial position, and self-report measures (i.e., efficacy, perceived indispensability of their relay performance) were used for hierarchical multiple regressions. Results indicated that the slowest relay members came closer to their individual best times compared with their team members. The fastest members showed less effort change toward their individual best times than their team members. However, efficacy beliefs in one's teammates had a small positive moderating influence on the fastest members’ effort in relay performances. Based on our results, we recommend Division II and III collegiate coaches not be too concerned with positional order by particular rank at early season invitationals; instead, focus on how to obtain the most effort from each relay member. However, the slowest swimmers may perform better if not positioned first.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".