Artificial Intelligence in Sports: Insights from a Quantitative Survey among Sports Students in Germany about their Perceptions, Expectations, and Concerns regarding the Use of AI Tools

Dennis Kraemer; Anja Bosold; Martin Minarik; Cleo Schyvinck; Andre Hajek

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.05785

Artificial Intelligence in Sports: Insights from a Quantitative Survey among Sports Students in Germany about their Perceptions, Expectations, and Concerns regarding the Use of AI Tools

Dennis Kraemer·Anja Bosold·Martin Minarik·Cleo Schyvinck·Andre Hajek

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or Gemini have a crucial impact on academic research and teaching. Empirical data on how students perceive the increasing influence of AI, which different types of tools they use, what they expect from them in their daily academic tasks, and their concerns regarding the use of AI in their studies are still limited. The manuscript presents findings from a quantitative survey conducted among sports students of all semesters in Germany using an online questionnaire. It explores aspects such as students' usage behavior, motivational factors, and uncertainties regarding the impact of AI tools on academia in the future. Furthermore, the social climate in sports studies is being investigated to provide a general overview of the current situation of the students in Germany. Data collection took place between August and November 2023, addressing all sports departments at German universities, with a total of 262 students participating. Our Findings indicate that students have a strong interest in using AI tools in their studies, expecting them to improve their overall academic performance, understand the complexity of scientific approaches, and save time. They express confidence that the proliferation of AI will not compromise their critical thinking skills. Moreover, students are positive about integrating more AI-related topics into the curriculum and about lecturers adopting more AI-based teaching methods. However, our findings also show that students have concerns about plagiarism, lecturer preparedness and their own skills and future skill development.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY cs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Dennis Kraemer, Anja Bosold, Martin Minarik, Cleo Schyvinck, Andre Hajek. 2026-06-30. Artificial Intelligence in Sports: Insights from a Quantitative Survey among Sports Students in Germany about their Perceptions, Expectations, and Concerns regarding the Use of AI Tools. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05785

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Measuring Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Content Generation

With the growing prevalence of generative artificial intelligence (AI), an increasing amount of content is no longer exclusively generated by humans but by generative AI models with human guidance. This shift presents notable challenges for the delineation of originality due to the varying degrees of human contribution in AI-assisted works. This study raises the research question of measuring human contribution in AI-assisted content generation and introduces a framework to address this question that is grounded in information theory. By calculating mutual information between human input and AI-assisted output relative to self-information of AI-assisted output, we quantify the proportional information contribution of humans in content generation. Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed measure effectively discriminates between varying degrees of human contribution across multiple creative domains. We hope that this work lays a foundation for measuring human contributions in AI-assisted content generation in the era of generative AI.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Can AI automatically analyze public opinion? A LLM agents-based agentic pipeline for timely public opinion analysis

This study proposes and implements the first LLM agents based agentic pipeline for multi task public opinion analysis. Unlike traditional methods, it offers an end-to-end, fully automated analytical workflow without requiring domain specific training data, manual annotation, or local deployment. The pipeline integrates advanced LLM capabilities into a low-cost, user-friendly framework suitable for resource constrained environments. It enables timely, integrated public opinion analysis through a single natural language query, making it accessible to non-expert users. To validate its effectiveness, the pipeline was applied to a real world case study of the 2025 U.S. China tariff dispute, where it analyzed 1,572 Weibo posts and generated a structured, multi part analytical report. The results demonstrate some relationships between public opinion and governmental decision-making. These contributions represent a novel advancement in applying generative AI to public governance, bridging the gap between technical sophistication and practical usability in public opinion monitoring.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Faster Results from a Smarter Schedule: Reframing Collegiate Cross Country through Analysis of the National Running Club Database

Collegiate cross country teams often build their season schedules on intuition rather than evidence, partly because large-scale performance datasets were not publicly accessible prior to the National Running Club Database (NRCD). We analyze the comprehensive-era Cross Country subset of NRCD, 23,360 results from 7,056 athletes (2023-2025; >99% course/weather coverage). Under leakage control and temporal validation, race-result features do not support out-of-year forecasting of individual improvement (best men's R^2 = 0.044; women's -0.018), capturing only a small fraction of the outcome's reliability ceiling (approximately 0.23-0.28). Against this null, team race frequency associates with nationals placement (pooled RR = 2.09; GEE OR = 2.56/SD). Program-wide opportunity (roster depth; Effective Racing Opportunity) outranks a single workhorse's max race count cross-sectionally, but overall team depth for race count is controlled. Converted Only times (not adjusted for weather and elevation) overstate mean first-to-last gains by 15-21 s relative to Standardized. These results challenge coaching practices that treat schedule design as purely anecdotal and show how NRCD enables evidence-based decision-making in collegiate cross country.

cs.CY↗