The relationships between communication, trust, success, satisfaction, and longevity in ice dancing and pairs skating.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to examine the relationship between communication, trust, success (i.e., performance outcome), satisfaction, and longevity of competitive pairs and ice dancing teams. The participants were 102 ice dancers (N = 74) and pairs skaters (N = 28) ranging in age from 10-26 (M = 17.40) from training sites in Northeastern Canada and the United States. They represented all levels of competitive experience (Juvenile N = 6, Intermediate/Pre-novice N = 14, Novice N = 20, Junior N = 32, and Senior N = 30). A survey package was completed which included: (1) a demographic questionnaire; (2) a measure of the participants perceived satisfaction with their relationship with their current partner (i.e., relational satisfaction) and their perceived satisfaction with the level of success they have achieved with their current partner (i.e., success satisfaction); (3) a measure of the skaters actual performance outcome was a weighted score based on the participant rankings during their most recent competitive season; (4) the Relational Communication Scale (Burgoon & Hale, 1987); (5) the Dyadic Trust Scale (Larzelere & Huston, 1980) examining interpersonal trust and; (6) a sport specific adapted form of the Dyadic Trust Scale examining physical trust. Results suggest that the communication theme "intimacy" may be a predictor of relational and success satisfaction. The RCS subscales were not significant predictors of longevity or performance outcome. Trust was a significantly correlated with relational satisfaction, success satisfaction and performance outcome. The type of relationship the participants reported had an impact on their scores on the RCS, DTS and adjusted DTS. The social validity assessment suggested that participants found the survey to be interesting and helpful. Limitations, suggestions for future research and significance of the study was discussed.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".