Structural interdependence as a method of distinguishing sport environments: A conceptual typology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport researchers typically categorize sport involvement using the labels 'team' and 'individual' sport in reference to task interdependence among individuals during competition. This distinction overlooks potential variation in task interdependence within each of these categories as well as additional sources of interdependence (e.g., outcome, reward, social) that contribute to the sport environment. The primary objective of this project is to present a conceptual typology of group interdependence to distinguish sport environments. Rooted in existing conceptual and empirical group dynamics research (e.g., Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Wageman, 1995), this typology allows categorization within one of seven distinct categories based upon several sources of structural interdependencies: task interdependence (i.e., the competitive task requires teammates to exchange efforts), group outcome interdependence (i.e., teammates share a collective outcome), individual outcome interdependence (i.e., congruence/incongruence of individual goals among teammates), and resource interdependence (i.e., reciprocal dependence on shared resources). By categorizing sport involvement according to group properties rather than broad task types (Larson, 2010)
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".