The impact of Chinese calligraphy practice on athletes’ self-control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case studies in sports suggest that calligraphy practice contributes to the psychological regulation of athletes in competition. Preliminary evidence suggests that Chinese calligraphy practice may enhance athletes’ self-control and emotion regulation. The purpose of this research was to examine the impact of Chinese calligraphy practice on two types of self-control (persistent and inhibitory self-control) and emotion among athletes. Two experiments with a mixed 2 × 2 experimental design was conducted with 207 Chinese collegiate athletes (129 males and 78 females) who were assigned to a calligraphy practice group or a control group. The findings reveal that Chinese calligraphy practice, which involves concentration, meditation, skill training and Taoist ideas, can improve athletes’ self-control. Specifically, it is more effective at enhancing persistent self-control than inhibitory self-control. Moreover, calligraphy practice can lead to increased positive emotion, reduced fatigue, and higher levels of vigor among athletes. These findings enrich the reservoir of psychological training (self-control training) in sports and provides a new self-control intervention.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".