Coach-Initiated Motivational Climate and Cohesion in Youth Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The general purpose of the present study was to examine the link between cohesion and motivational climate in youth sport. The first specific objective was to determine if relationships demonstrated in previous research with adult basketball and handball participants would be replicated in a younger sample and with a more heterogeneous set of sports. The second specific objective was to examine whether sources of athlete enjoyment moderate the relationships between motivational climate and cohesion. METHOD: Athletes (N = 997; 532 girls and 465 boys; Mage = 15.26 +/- 1.20 years) completed measures pertaining to coach-initiated motivational climate, cohesion, and sources of enjoyment. RESULTS: Bivariate and canonical correlations revealed positive correlations between perceptions of a task-involving motivational climate and both task and social cohesion, while ego-involving motivational climate was negatively related. Cluster analyses suggested that individuals perceiving a low task-involving climate and high ego-involving climate perceived their teams as less cohesive. Finally, the degree to which participants derived enjoyment through other-referenced competency served as a moderator in the motivational climate-task cohesion relationship. Specifically, the relationship between task cohesion and motivational climate was more pronounced for those individuals who were less likely to derive enjoyment through other-referenced competency. CONCLUSIONS: Youth athletes' perceptions of coach-initiated motivational climate are related to cohesion. This relationship is, however, moderated by the degree to which athletes derive enjoyment through other-referenced competency. Motivational climate is an important variable to consider within team-building protocols intent on developing cohesion.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".