Factors contributing to the retention of Canadian amateur sport officials: Motivations, perceived organizational support, and resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using an ecological systems perspective, the purpose of this investigation was to understand what motivates individuals to enter into and remain active in officiating, their resilience, and their perceptions of the support they receive from their sport organizations in Canada. A sample of 1073 (806 males, 267 females) active officials from 37 different sports provided individual responses to a demographic questionnaire, the Sport Motivation Scale, the 8-Item Survey of Perceived Organizational Support, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale and by responding to a series of open-ended questions. Independent four-way (i.e. age, sex, sport category, setting) analysis of variance procedures revealed a number of significant differences, with younger officials (i.e. 15 years or less) more extrinsically motivated than their older counterparts (F(10,832) = 3.19, p < 0.0001), males displaying higher levels of intrinsic motivation to experience excitement in the role than females (F(1832) = 5.69, p < 0.02), and females demonstrating higher and lower levels of amotivation (F(2832) = 3.16, p < 0.04) in comparison to males in urban and rural settings, respectively. The officials in this study were highly resilient, with only 7.8% of the sample yielding resilience scores below the population norm. Younger officials (i.e. under 20 years) demonstrated higher levels of perceived organizational support than those in older age groups (F(10,831) = 1.99, p < 0.03), while females displayed significantly lower mean perceived organizational support scores in urban environments and higher mean perceived organizational support scores in rural settings than males (F(2831) = 4.53, p < 0.01). The results provide a baseline against which future studies of sports officials may be compared.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".