MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413212798 · doi:10.1123/tsp.2024-0179

A Case Study Situating a Self-Regulated Learning Survey in Consultation Between an Elite Athlete and a Sport Psychology Practitioner

2025· article· en· W4413212798 on OpenAlexaff
Małgorzata Siekańska, Stuart Wilson, Jan Blecharz, Bradley W. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sport Psychologist · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationPsychologyCoachingApplied psychologySport psychologyContext (archaeology)Situational ethicsPsychological interventionElite athletesAthletesMedical educationSocial psychologyInterpersonal communicationMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Athletes can use self-regulated-learning (SRL) competencies to improve their engagement in practice through awareness and control of their cognition, motivation, affect, behavior, and environment. While sport research has extensively developed measures to assess SRL, little work has considered how those tools may facilitate contextually specific interventions in applied practice. In an instrumental case study, supported by a semistructured interview, we explored how the Polish Short Form of the Self-Regulated Learning for Sport Practice (SRL-SP) could be used as an intrapersonal development tool to guide an applied consulting session with an elite athlete. The results exemplify how an SRL survey could be used in consulting to help athletes develop proactive approaches to practice. Specifically, the Polish Short Form SRL-SP was useful as a dialogue tool and for monitoring the development of SRL competencies. The survey’s applied utility may be influenced by characteristics of the discipline, competitive level, and situational coaching context.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0140.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Sport PsychologistSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207