Developmental soccer experiences and self-determined motivation: A follow-up study of elite youth players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this 2.5 year follow-up of elite youth soccer players from the UK, we assessed changes in indices of self-determined motivation and their relationships with various soccer activities (practice & play). Participants from two age categories (under 15 yr, n =20; under 17 yr, n = 11 at T2) completed the behavioural regulation in sport questionnaire (BRSQ) and retrospective soccer activity questionnaire at time 1 (T1 = Oct, 2011) and time 2 (T2 = Jan, 2013). Accumulated hours in soccer practice during the last 2.5 years (range 552 – 1503) was negatively correlated with global self-determined motivation (SDI; r = -.32, p < .05) and positively correlated to external motivation (r = -.49, p < .01) and amotivation (r = -.37, p < .05). Hours in play were not related to SDI. A series of 2 (Age category; U15, U17) x 2 (Time; T1, T2) repeated measures ANOVA's showed that intrinsic motivation generally decreased from T1 to T2 (p = .01). Motivation for older age group players became less self-determined and more controlled over time (Age X Time interaction, p < .05). Since the older players had just been awarded, or were just about to be offered, adult-professional contracts, these data highlight the changing nature of motivation as a function of rewards associated with Professionalism. The younger players did not show the same relationship between practice and motivation over time, SDI did not decrease.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".