Using a Multilevel Approach to Examine the Relationship between Task Cohesion and Team Task Satisfaction in Elite Ice Hockey Players
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
Of numerous studies conducted over the years examining cohesion in the sport setting, very few have acknowledged that participants are nested within teams, which has resulted in analysis of data at the individual level. Given that members of sport teams are interdependent, valuable information might be lost if constructs such as cohesion are examined only at an individual level. The purpose of this study was to illustrate how multilevel modeling could be used to handle this interdependence among observations within teams when examining the relationship between task cohesion and team satisfaction. Male ice hockey players (N = 194) on 10 teams completed the cohesion and satisfaction measures near the end of the regular season. Using multilevel analysis, task cohesion predicted variance in team task satisfaction at the individual (33%) and group (55%) levels. Results highlight the value of multilevel models as well as extend research finding a relationship between cohesion and individual satisfaction to team satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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