Athlete Satisfaction and Leadership: Assessing Group-Level Effects
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
In a group context (e.g., athletic team), group-level effects may be present in constructs typically measured at the individual level (e.g., athlete satisfaction, leadership behavior). If a group-level effect is present, constructs should be analyzed using the group as the unit of analysis and failure to do so can lead to skewed relationships with other constructs. The purpose of this study is to examine the existence and magnitude of group-level effects when athletes rate athlete satisfaction and leadership behavior. The authors hypothesize: (a) group-level effects emerge when group members rate a shared property of the group, and (b) group-level effects may be present when group members rate an individual-level construct that exist within the context of the group. A total of 212 team athletes (members of 16 interactive athletic teams; mean age 20.1 ± 1.96 years) completed subscales of the Leadership Scale for Sports and the Athlete Satisfaction Questionnaire. Results show large group-level effects for all leadership behavior dimensions and satisfaction dimensions associated with group-level constructs, whereas smaller group-level effects were found for satisfaction dimensions associated with individual-level constructs. The results support the hypotheses that group-level effects can emerge for constructs previously viewed solely as individual-level constructs when measured in a group setting. Recognition of these effects should play a factor in determining the appropriate unit of analysis. Implications for handling groups without a group-level effect, while the majority of groups show an effect, are also 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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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