Understanding Motivational Processes in University Rugby Players: A Preliminary Test of the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation at the Contextual Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceptions of autonomy support, structure and involvement provided by the head coach and motivational processes at mid- and late-season in competitive rugby players. Participants ( M age = 20.17 years, SD = 1.61 years, Range = 18 to 27 years) completed assessments of perceived coaching style and psychological need fulfillment at the mid-season point ( n mid-season = 102; 47.05% female) and motivation to continue playing rugby and perceived effort spent playing rugby at the late-season assessment ( N late-season = 82; 53.64% female). Structural equation modeling analyses provided support for a conceptual model whereby global perceptions of coach support predicted greater need fulfillment which, in turn, was associated with autonomous sport motivation and greater perceived effort. Overall, the results of this study lend partial support for Vallerand's contentions regarding the importance of motivation processes in sport and imply structure and involvement may be important components of a coach's interactional style that impact athletes' motivation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".