Decision-making skills and deliberate practice in elite association football referees
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
We examined sport expertise as a function of role. In study 1, referees were better than players in a video-based decision-making task. This provides evidence that there are role-specific skills within one domain or sport. In study 2, we examined the training activities that could be influential in the development of skills in sports officials. Elite association football (soccer) referees retrospectively reported time spent in and perceptions of training activities for three periods: their first year of formal refereeing, 1998 (before formal training programmes were available), and the current year (2003). This allowed us to examine an area of skill with a limited culture of practice, where performance simulations with direct feedback are usually not feasible. The results showed that referees specialize early and, as they develop, they engage in greater volumes and types of training. Competitive match refereeing is considered a relevant activity for skill acquisition that does not fit Ericsson and colleagues' (1993) original definition of deliberate practice. Our findings indicate that actual performance is a significant activity for skill acquisition and refinement.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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