Positional competition and intra-team conflict in university team-sport athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In elite sport, athletes often engage in positional competition (i.e., teammates vying for the same, limited playing time under the awareness of the coach; Harenberg et al., 2015). This competition is unique to elite sports; it is an ongoing, selective process that involves various team members (i.e., teammates in the same position, coaches). Anecdotal evidence suggests that positional competition might lead to conflict — defined as an interpersonal experience of negative emotional reactions to perceived disagreements and interference with the attainment of goals (Barki & Hartwick, 2004). From a research perspective, the relationship between these two multidimensional constructs has yet to be explored. As such, the current project sought to examine the relationship between positional competition and intra-team conflict in university team-sport athletes. A total of 102 Canadian Interuniversity Sport athletes (Mage = 20.77; SD = 2.07; n = 78 females) completed the Positional Competition in Team Sport Questionnaire (Harenberg et al., 2014) and the Group Conflict Questionnaire (Paradis et al., 2014). Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the relationships between the constructs. Significant negative relationships were found between task and social conflict, and three dimensions of positional competition (i.e., push by teammates, coach recognition, coach selection; r=-.19 – r=-.37). The findings indicate that higher perceptions of positional competition may in fact be related to lower perceptions of intra-team conflict. Contrary to traditional perspectives of competition being predominantly destructive, positional competition within sport teams is a group process that may be constructive in nature. Limitations and future directions are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".