Perceptions of the effectiveness of sport organisations: The case of intercollegiate athletics
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 organisational effectiveness (OE) construct is something of an enigma. While OE is at the theoretical centre of all organisational models and is the ultimate dependent variable of organisational studies, despite more than 60 years of research on the topic, substantial challenges concerning how to. conceptualise, measure, and explain OE remain. In this paper we build on the consensus that has emerged in the literature that the construct space of OE includes a wide variety of criteria and that assessments of OE are a function of one's priorities. The purpose of the paper is to address an issue essentially ignored in the literature ‐ relationships among the attributes that contribute to perceptions of OE. In an effort to accomplish our purpose, we present a preliminary study conducted within the context of intercollegiate athletics. The case study was designed to establish: (a) the factors that are the most important determinants of perceptions of effectiveness, and (b) how these factors interact with one another. Content analyses of interviews with ten salient stakeholders revealed that six factors are essential determinants of perceptions of athletic program success. These factors are related to athletic performance on the field, student‐athlete education, program ethics, and the effects of programs on a university's image, resources, and institutional enthusiasm. Thematic mapping of the interviews revealed that, while determinants of perceptions of success often work in concert with one another, some determinants tend to influence perceptions of success on their own. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and pragmatic relevance of addressing relationships among OE attributes and by suggesting promising research directions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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