Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to fill an apparent gap in the literature addressing issues of leadership and change - the development and activities of constructing and leading sports sciences and medicine professions, and similarly, the construction and leadership of multidisciplinary/inter-disciplinary organisations that practice sports sciences and medicine. Design/methodology/approach - This study incorporated explorations through conducting both interviews and survey questionnaires with members of Sports Medicine Australia (SMA). The interviews (qualitative) were semi-structured and asked questions addressing what changed, why change and how change was implemented. Findings - The health sciences and medicine professions moving to specialised sports sciences and medicine disciplines and SMA, evolved through forces driving the need for change (legitimacy, resource dependency, positioning and core competencies). Practical implications - The knowledge developed from understanding activities of change that traditional professions conducted to become specialised Disciplines and parallel changes in a single Discipline organisation evolving to an umbrella organisation (SMA), comprised a membership of specialised Disciplines, can act as a catalyst for inquiry by other professional and organisational groups. Originality/value - The findings of this study contributes to the literature investigating change in professional and organisations fields. More specifically, this study promotes inquiry into leadership practices of sports sciences and medicine, as contributors to the field of health services.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".