Performers in a pandemic: A mixed-methods study of university opera singers, pianists, and athletes during the Covid-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed-methods study explored the experiences of high performers who experienced disruptions in training and performance during the Covid-19 pandemic. Twenty participants included university-level opera singers ( n = 7), pianists ( n = 6), and athletes ( n = 7), who completed an online survey at three timepoints consisting of demographic information, the BBC Subjective Well-being Scale, the Brief Daily Stressors Screening Tool, and the Coping Self-Efficacy Scale. At each timepoint, participants also completed individual semi-structured interviews regarding stressors, coping strategies, and their overall well-being. Opera singers and pianists had lower global well-being scores across the three timepoints compared to athletes. Pianists demonstrated a decrease in well-being over time, along with decreases in quality of social relationships and physical health. All three groups of performers reported high scores for problem-focused coping self-efficacy, although athletes had higher scores for coping self-efficacy in seeking support, and for stopping unpleasant thoughts. Analysis of the qualitative data indicated similarities in challenges across performers; however, there were differences in the impact of the pandemic on social opportunities, inability to train and perform, concerns about identity disruption, and impacts on career prospects. Opera singers and pianists appeared to reflect more on their identities and the role of performing arts in society during the pandemic. These results shed light on the ways that high performers in different domains were impacted by disruptions due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".