Lay beliefs about savouring and performance in elite sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athletes may be able to optimize their experiences in sport by engaging in savouring – that is, by attempting to maintain, enhance, or prolong their enjoyment of positive experiences. However, it is unclear if athletes believe that there are performance benefits associated with savouring good times in sport. The purpose of this research was to study the lay beliefs that athletes have about the connection between savouring and elite sport performance. We collected data online from 326 sport participants via Prolific. Participants were randomly assigned to answer questions from the Savoring Beliefs Inventory in a way that they thought either the most successful, least successful, or average elite athlete would answer them. A one-way ANOVA showed that estimated levels of savouring differed between the three conditions, F (2, 323) = 19.15, p < .001, η;2 = .106. Post-hoc tests indicated that estimated levels of savouring in the least successful condition were significantly lower than those in both the most successful and average conditions, which did not significantly differ from each other. Finding the lowest levels of savouring with the least successful condition likely reflects the impression that less successful elite athletes have few positive experiences to savour. But this same logic cannot explain why predicted levels of savouring among the most successful elite athletes, despite presumably having ample positive experiences that could be savoured, were not significantly different than savouring among average elite athletes. Future research is thus needed to continue exploring athletes’ beliefs about the effects of savouring in sport.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".