MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7006497406

Uncovering the Psychological and Physiological Factors that Influence Performance and Choking Under Pressure

2023· other· en· W7006497406 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCell Image Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChokingAnxietyAthletesPerceptionCognitionSport psychologyPsychological interventionArousalPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research suggests that there are more complex psychophysiological influences occurring when an athlete chokes under competitive pressure (Hill et al., 2010; Mesagno et al., 2015). Although the main choking under pressure theories have been researched independently for decades, both Hill et al. (2010) and Lewis and Linder (1997) suggested that these theories are no longer mutually exclusive, with the potential to converge providing insight into the same psychological and physiological factors that influence performance and choking under pressure. Therefore, this dissertation examines the psychological and physiological factors that influence performance and choking under pressure for those who are susceptible to choking, while also exploring different contexts for performers under pressure. This dissertation also investigates how sport psychology interventions such as a pre-performance routine, that integrate breathing, muscle relaxation, attention and self-talk, could help to improve the psychological and physiological factors that influence performance and choking under pressure. In conclusion, all three studies provide insight into the psychological and physiological factors that influences performance and choking under pressure. In particular, the results from study 1 suggested that athletes who are choking susceptible have a lower working memory capacity, and self-confidence, as well as higher cognitive and somatic anxiety than those athletes who are non-choking susceptible. In study 2 results provided insight into how pressure is experienced by athlete and non-athlete performers, and how pressure may be experienced differently between performance contexts. The results from study 3 demonstrated that learning to use a pre-performance routine at the proper time during competition, could help to improve factors contributing to performance under pressure and ideally could help to alleviate a choke.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)→Same topicCell Image Analysis Techniques→French-language works237,207→