Leadership of Presidents of Brazilian Olympic Sport Federations: Comparison between Real and Ideal Perceived Competencies Profiles According to Their Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed at verifying whether there are differences in behavioural self-perception of presidents of the Brazilian Olympic Sport Federations regarding the real and ideal leadership competencies profiles, taking their time of experience in position into account. This study comprised two complementary studies. The sample of the first study included 83 participants who filled out a translated and adapted version of the Managerial Behaviour Instrument. In the second study, ten presidents of the Olympic Sport Federations of Minas Gerais were interviewed and their answers were content analysed; complementary, there were consulted the statutes of their organizations in what concerns to their duties. Overall, the analysis of the results of both studies showed that all presidents perceived themselves as being competent and, in general, they considered the need of some improvements in their leadership competencies. Furthermore, the presidents declared that, over time, some knowledge and competencies have been acquired and developed, allowing them to adjust management practices. In sum, the time of experience seems to play an important role in the self-perception and development of leadership competencies in these Brazilian presidents.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".