The Relationship Between Self-Rated Athlete Leadership Characteristics, Self-Construal, and Team Cohesion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of cohesion in the study of sport teams has long been recognized by group dynamics researchers (e.g., Brawley, Carron, & Widmeyer, 1987). However, drawing on the Conceptual Framework of Cohesion in Sport (Carron, 1982), many antecedents of cohesion have yet to be explored in detail. Therefore, the current study focused on two of the antecedent factors from Carron's framework. Specifically, this study examined the relationship concerning athlete leadership and self-construal in relation to team cohesion. Athletes ( N = 278) from a variety of varsity level sport teams competing within the Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) Association participated in this study. Structural Equation Modeling revealed that athletes who viewed themselves as possessing high levels of leadership characteristics, and having a dominant interdependent self-construal felt more task and socially cohesive with their teammates. Additionally, cohesion was not associated with teammates who construed themselves in an independent fashion.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".