The motivation behind unsanctioned violence in international rugby: A case study of a former elite player
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At focus in this case study was the participant's perception of, and personal involvement in, rugby violence. The participant was a 50-year-old ex-international and former British and Irish Lions rugby union player. A qualitative approach informed by reversal theory and incorporating retrospective semi-structured interview procedures with inductive and deductive elements was used to explore a number of topics related to his rugby playing career, including rugby violence. Among other statements related to play and power violence, the participant described his experience of three major incidents involving personal rugby violence. Each incident resulted in injury to the opposing player which required extensive medical attention. Two of the reported incidents supported previous reversal theory-based research findings related to the motivation behind anger violence in sport. The third incident illustrated a type of sport violence not previously identified in reversal theory-based sport research. It was termed “protective” or “supportive” violence, where an athlete comes to the aid, rescue or defence of a teammate. The findings provide valuable new insights on rugby violence, adding to sport psychology's understanding of the motivational processes involved.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".