Psychological collectivism in youth athletes on individual sport teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to determine whether psychological collectivism could predict enjoyment and intentions to return in athletes on individual sport teams. In addition, structural interdependence and age were used as moderator variables for the proposed relationships. A total of 142 youth (Mage = 14.44 years; SD = 1.63; 62% female) completed questionnaires at two data-collection periods (T1 – psychological collectivism, structural interdependence, and age; T2 – enjoyment and intentions to return), and the results indicated that psychological collectivism positively predicted both enjoyment and intentions to return. Also, task interdependence significantly moderated the relationship between psychological collectivism and enjoyment (b = .14, t(137) = −1.90, p = .06) and intentions to return (b = −.17, t(137) = −2.07, p < .05). Specifically, in situations where athletes were required to work together during competition (e.g. relays), athletes’ collectivistic orientation had a stronger relationship with both enjoyment and intentions to return. Similarly, among older athletes, collectivism had a stronger positive relationship with intentions to return (b = .05, t(138) = 2.04, p < .05). These results are discussed in terms of their theoretical and practical implications.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".