Athletes’ Perceptions of the Sources of Role Ambiguity
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 purpose of the study was to determine athletes’perceptions of the sources of role ambiguity in interactive sport teams. Athletes (N = 151; 97 females and 54 males) were asked to identify why ambiguity might exist in relation to the scope of their role responsibilities, the behaviors necessary to fulfill those responsibilities, the evaluation of their role performance, and the consequences of not successfully fulfilling their role responsibilities. Results revealed an extensive set of possible sources for each dimension of role ambiguity that emerged from the responses that included factors associated with the role sender (e.g., coach), the focal person (e.g., the athlete), and the situation. The types and frequency of factors differed among the various dimensions of ambiguity thereby lending support to the necessity of considering role ambiguity in sport as a multidimensional construct. The relevance of the results to sport and future intervention research is discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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