Role ambiguity and social cohesion in youth interdependent sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using the Role Episode Model (Khan et al., 1964) as a foundation, the purpose of this study was to examine the reciprocal relationship between role ambiguity (Beauchamp et al., 2002) and group cohesion (Eys et al., 2009) in youth interdependent sport. Participants (N = 162; 12-18 years of age; M = 15.00 years) took part in two testing sessions (mid-season vs. late-season) designed to measure individual perceptions of role ambiguity and group cohesion within their respective teams. After statistically controlling for status, gender, and team membership, results demonstrated that perceptions of social cohesion at midseason positively predicted variations in perceptions of role ambiguity pertaining to scope of defensive responsibilities, F(2,104) = 35.12, p < .001, and role behaviours on defense, F(2,104) = 37.44, p < .001, between mid- and end of season. Results indicated that social relationships may play a part in role construction within sport teams and that other teammates may facilitate a clearer understanding of athletes' specific role sets within their team. Further, it was suggested that the need to belong (as a fundamental human motivation) and the importance of group level functions in peer relationships in adolescence could explain the salience of social cohesion in the cohesion-role ambiguity relationship for youth. Implications are identified for practice in youth sport, and limits and future directions are addressed.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".