More Questions About Excellencism, Perfectionism, and Attitudes Toward Cheating in Professional Baseball: A Look at Potential Mediators and Doping Attitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Model of Excellencism and Perfectionism has been proposed to differentiate the pursuit of high but realistic standards (excellencism) from the pursuit of perfectionistic standards. In a recent study, perfectionistic standards were positively linked to bottom-line mentality, moral disengagement, and tolerance toward electronic sign stealing (cheating) in professional baseball. In this follow-up study, we investigated the reactions of sports fans when the Houston Astros qualified for the 2021 World Series of Baseball 2 years after being found guilty of cheating. We found that fans of the Astros (n = 202) displayed a higher tolerance toward cheating than those of the Atlanta Braves (n = 265). Results of multiple regression (controlling for in-group vs. out-group status) showed higher tolerance toward cheating and doping in perfection strivers compared with excellence strivers. A winning-at-all-cost mentality and moral disengagement mediated the relationships between perfectionism and cheating attitudes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".