MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2340879031 · doi:10.14288/1.0100599

Effects of temporal perspective width on intuitive prediction of player behaviour by ice-hockey officials

2011· article· en· W2340879031 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elizabeth Tench

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce hockeyPerspective (graphical)Computer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysical medicine and rehabilitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis investigates a new model of non-normative prediction that addresses the contribution of width of temporal perspective to intuitive prediction. Intuitive prediction is defined in this thesis as the non-normative prediction of other's behaviour. This new model of intuitive prediction is termed the Temporal Perspective Model (TPM). The notion of temporal perspective expands upon the understanding of intuitive prediction provided by several major social and cognitive theories of the judgement process. TPM asserts that utilisation of the triad of past temporal perspective, present temporal perspective and future temporal perspective increases accuracy of intuitive prediction in judgement contexts. Past and future temporal perspectives are used through the generation and rehearsal of both experience-acquired and novel, possible judgement strategies outside of the actual judgement context (GIOA). Present temporal perspective (PTP) plays a mediating role in the expression of the products of this process within the judgement context. TPM posits that the width of temporal perspective is influenced by perceptions of self-efficacy, which is associated with use of past and future perspectives in the generation of judgement strategies, and also by motivational style, which is associated with engagement of present temporal perspective. Five motivational styles and their associated affects are proposed as influences on present temporal perspective: aggressive motivation, conflict motivation, competitive motivation, cooperative motivation and competence motivation. The context in which TPM has been investigated is the sport environment. The subjects in this study were 118 ice-hockey officials from Vancouver's Lower Mainland. A two by two factorial design was utilised to investigate the major proposition that the temporal perspective model distinguishes individuals in terms of overall achievement in a judgement context. The overall achievement variable was the first principle component derived from an analysis of a set of nine items referring to achieved levels of officiating, number of games assigned and supervisor and peer commendations. This analysis demonstrated significant differences between levels of overall achievement on the following variables: a) engagement of past and future temporal perspectives outside of the judgement context; b) engagement of present temporal perspective within the judgement context; c) the motivational styles of cooperation and competence. Aggressive, conflict and competitive motivations did not significantly distinguish groups in terms of overall achievement. A second two by two design of past-future by present temporal perspective was implemented to investigate the mediation of past-future temporal perspectives by present temporal perspective on the dependent variable of intuitive prediction. The variable of intuitive prediction was the first principle component of an analysis performed on five items relating to peer reports of implementation of successful, creative or original solutions to game problems. This analysis yielded significant main effects for the first factor of past-future temporal perspective and for the second factor of present temporal perspective. A highly significant interaction was found between past-future temporal perspective and present temporal perspective on the dependent variable intuitive prediction. Correlational analyses revealed significant associations between present temporal perspective and motivational style. The results of this study have largely supported the validity of the constructs proposed in TPM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207