La eficacia de rol, la claridad de rol y el rendimiento en jóvenes futbolistas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo del trabajo fue doble: 1) Analizar las relaciones entre la eficacia de rol, la claridad de rol y el desempeno efectivo del rol como un indicador subjetivo del rendimiento; y 2) Examinar el papel de la claridad de rol como variable moduladora de la relacion entre la eficacia de rol y el rendimiento, ambos objetivos en situaciones de ataque y de defensa en el futbol. Doscientos noventa y cinco futbolistas varones de entre 12 y 16 anos (M = 14.01, DE = 1.09) completaron los cuestionarios que evaluaban las variables del estudio. Los resultados mostraron que aquellos que percibian una claridad de rol alta tambien percibian una eficacia de rol alta y un desempeno del rol alto. Ademas se confirmo el papel modulador de la claridad de rol en las funciones defensivas, concretamente, la eficacia de rol resulto ser un predictor positivo del rendimiento siempre y cuando la claridad de rol fuera alta.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".