A comparison of well-peer mentored and non-peer mentored athletes’ perceptions of satisfaction
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
The purpose of the present study was to compare well-peer mentored and non-peer mentored athletes' perceptions of satisfaction. A total of 444 intercollegiate athletes (272 well-peer mentored and 172 non-peer mentored) from a variety of sport teams participated in the study. Athletes from both well-peer mentored and non-peer mentored groups reported their satisfaction levels using the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire. The results of a MANOVA and follow-up post hoc ANOVAs showed that well-peer mentored athletes were significantly more satisfied than their non-peer mentored counterparts in terms of individual performance, personal dedication, team task contribution, team social contribution, team integration, ethics, ability utilisation and training and instruction. Overall, the findings suggest that athletes who are well-peer mentored by a teammate perceive higher satisfaction levels with various aspects of their athletic experience than athletes who are not peer mentored by a teammate. Given these positive findings, practitioners (i.e., coaches, sport psychology consultants) should inform athletes on the benefits of peer-to-peer mentoring. The practical implications of the results and strategies to promote peer athlete mentoring relationships in sport are highlighted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it