Étude microsystémique des facteurs influençant l’anxiété de performance de l’élève athlète
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé \nCette étude caractérise les facteurs de protection et de risque de l’anxiété de performance associés aux parents, aux entraîneurs et aux enseignants des élèves athlètes des programmes de Sport-études québécois. Le devis qualitatif interprétatif est ancré dans le modèle écologique de Bronfenbrenner. Seize entretiens semi-dirigés individuels documentent le point de vue de quatre trios (élève athlète, parent et entraîneur), celui d’une dyade (élève athlète et parent) et de deux personnes en direction sportive et scolaire. L’analyse thématique révèle plus de facteurs de protection que de facteurs de risque. Les résultats soulignent l’importance d’améliorer les savoirs des enseignants et de mieux définir les attentes académiques envers les élèves athlètes liées au programme de Sport-études. Ils mettent de l’avant la nécessité d’aider les élèves athlètes à modifier leurs schémas de pensées et de promouvoir l’apprentissage par erreur. Finalement, cette étude démontre l’importance de considérer les multiples sources d’influence de l’anxiété de performance. \n \nAbstract \nThis study characterizes the protective and risk factors of performance anxiety associated with parents, coaches and teachers of student athletes in Quebec Sport-studies programs. The interpretative qualitative study is anchored in Bronfenbrenner's ecological model. Sixteen semi-structured individual interviews document the perspective of four trios (student athlete, parent and coach), that of a dyad (student athlete and parent) and two people in sports and school management. The thematic analysis reveals more protective factors than risk factors. The results underline the importance of improving the knowledge of teachers and of better defining the academic expectations of student athletes related to the Sport-studies program. They emphasize the need to help student athletes change their thought patterns and promote learning through mistake. Finally, this study demonstrates the importance of considering the multiple sources of influence of performance anxiety.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".