MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009213554 · doi:10.1002/ejsp.98

Motivation and dropout in female handballers: a 21‐month prospective study

2002· article· en· W2009213554 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Sarrazin, Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, F. Cury

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Social Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyFeelingCompetence (human resources)Intrinsic motivationStructural equation modelingDropout (neural networks)AutonomySelf-determination theoryPerceptionNeed for achievementDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The purpose of this study was to test a motivational model of sport dropout that integrates the four‐stage causal sequence proposed by the Hierarchical Model of Vallerand ( 1997 ) and elements from achievement goal theory (Nicholls, 1989 ). The model posits that a task involving motivational climate facilitates, while an ego‐involving climate undermines, perceptions of competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In turn, feeling incompetent, non‐autonomous, and unrelated to others undermines self‐determined motivation toward handball which leads to the intention of dropping out of the game. Finally, such intentions are implemented later. Three hundred and thirty‐five female handballers completed a motivation questionnaire and were followed for 21 months. Results from structural equation modelling analyses provided basic support for the model. The findings are discussed in the light of their theoretical and applied implications. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations603
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Social PsychologySame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207