Athletes' perceptions of role acceptance in interdependent sport teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to gain insight into athletes' perceptions of role acceptance. Guided by the basic tenets of descriptive phenomenology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 male (n = 8) and female (n = 7) intercollegiate athletes from a variety of interdependent sport teams. The interviews were subsequently transcribed and analyzed for emergent themes. An additional four athletes were recruited for the purpose of verification interviews. Clear trends regarding role acceptance emerged. In terms of defining role acceptance, participants described the concept as an athlete's willingness to fulfill the role responsibilities expected of him or her. Athletes also suggested role acceptance was influenced by perceptions of leadership, team cohesion, intra-team communication, and other role related perceptions. The consequences of role acceptance were perceived in light of the group's environment (e.g., performance, normative behavior, interpersonal conflict) and in relation to the individual (e.g., emotional state, attrition/retention). The present findings elucidated the practical applicability of fostering role acceptance in interdependent sport teams as related to individual and team success. Further, theoretical implications pertaining to the distinctiveness of role acceptance from other related role concepts will be discussed.Acknowledgments: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Joseph-Armand Bombardier MasterOCOs Graduate Scholarship
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".