We are the champions, but how do we respond? Savoring and dampening in response to championship victories among passionate sports fans
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim in this research was to test if the ways passionate sports fans respond immediately after an important team victory depend on the extent to which passion is harmonious or obsessive. Fans of Liverpool F.C. (n = 299) and the Winnipeg Blue Bombers (n = 334) completed online surveys shortly after their teams had won an important championship game. Fans answered questions assessing passion and the extent to which they engaged in savoring (i.e., attempting to maintain, augment, or prolong positive emotions) and dampening (i.e., attempting to stifle positive emotions) following the victory. In both samples, we found that both harmonious and obsessive passion predicted greater savoring, but only obsessive passion predicted greater dampening. These findings build on previous research and suggest an additional reason for why harmonious and obsessive passion among sports fans tend to predict more and less adaptive outcomes, respectively.
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it