Investigation of Ego and Task Orientation among International Wrestling Referees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: study was to investigate any possible effect(s) of experiences from active membership and participation in task or ego orientations among referees in the sport of wrestling. Material: The sample consisted of 213 international referees from 30 countries (Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, Russia, Poland, Hungary, U.S.A, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Japan, Korea, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Canada, Georgia, Croatia, Uzbekistan, Norway, Cuba, Belarus, & Tunisia). Their age ranged from 26 to 60 yrs. old ( M =43, SD =8.6). During the procedure, the participants were asked to fill a specific questionnaire, the «Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire» (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). Results: Results showed that the referees from elite wrestling level’ countries (Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, U.S.A., Korea, Japan, Kazakhstan, & Cuba) are more task oriented than those from the non-elite wrestling level’ countries. Researchers believe that this occurred because referees from non-elite wrestling level’ countries might have less game-sport experience and more specifically in high level games. At the same time, the Olympic experience referees were more task oriented than the non-Olympic experienced. Conclusion: Referee’s decisions are an important issue in the sport milieu. The investigations in decision-making by referees and factors that affect it are rather scarce and research should focus on such topics. Improvement of decision-making by referees, would lead to safer and better performance. Thus, better understanding of referees’ behavior, through identification and operationalization of the factors affecting it, might lead to more effective selection, training and performance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".