Investigating athlete mentoring functions and their association with leadership behaviours and protégé satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was twofold. The first purpose was to examine the relationship between athlete mentor leadership behaviours and protégé receipt of mentoring functions. The second purpose was to examine the association between mentoring functions and protégé satisfaction. Intercollegiate athletes who indicated that they were protégés (N = 272) completed measures to assess their athlete mentors’ use of leadership behaviours (DTLI) and mentoring functions (MRI). Protégés also completed an instrument (ASQ) which assessed the degree to which they were personally satisfied during the time they were mentored. The results of structural equation modelling showed that the transformational leadership behaviour of inspirational motivation was positively related to psychosocial mentoring. In addition, the transformational leadership behaviour of intellectual stimulation and the transactional leadership behaviour of contingent reward showed positive associations to vocational mentoring. Finally, results showed that psychosocial mentoring was positively related to protégé satisfaction. These findings provide sport psychology consultants, coaches, and athletes with important knowledge concerning which mentoring functions are related to specific leadership behaviours and protégé 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.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".