MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6921978718 · doi:10.1051/sm/2022002/pdf

Développement et validation préliminaire du questionnaire d’orientation régulatrice en sport  : le QORS

2022· article· fr· W6921978718 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Measure (data warehouse)Focus (optics)Field (mathematics)Filter (signal processing)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

\nLa Théorie de l’Orientation Régulatrice (TOR ; Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300 ) distingue deux systèmes motivationnels qui régulent les comportements, les émotions et les pensées des personnes : l’orientation régulatrice de prévention et celle de promotion. À ce jour, il n’existe pas d’outil psychométrique de langue française adapté au contexte sportif pour évaluer ces deux construits. Cette étude a pour objet d’élaborer un tel outil à partir de la General Regulatory Focus Measure ( Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 854–864 ). La démarche a respecté les étapes de validation transculturelle des outils psychométriques ( Vallerand, R.J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation trans-culturelle de questionnaires psychologiques : implications pour la recherche en langue française. Psychologie Canadienne, 30, 662–680 ). Cinq études ont permis d’évaluer (a) une version préliminaire, (b) sa validité concomitante, (c) sa validité de construit par l’analyse de sa structure factorielle (Analyse Factorielle Exploratoire suivie d’une Analyse Factorielle Confirmatoire [AFC]), (d) sa stabilité temporelle, et (e) sa validité prédictive par l’étude des corrélations entre les deux orientations régulatrices et différents construits (ouverture, conscienciosité, extraversion, agréabilité, neuroticisme, motivation d’approche, motivation d’évitement, et estime de soi). En accord avec la théorie, l’AFC a montré qu’un modèle a deux dimensions orthogonales était ajusté de manière satisfaisante aux données, et, globalement, les résultats attestaient des différentes validités. L’outil proposé semble être valide et utile pour les chercheurs souhaitant étudier l’orientation régulatrice d’athlètes francophones.\n

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)→Same topicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports→French-language works237,207→