The role of team comedians within interdependent sport teams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informal roles in sport teams (i.e., roles that develop naturally within the team without formal prescription) have the potential to influence team functioning (Cope et al., 2011). One such role is the team comedian—an athlete who consistently uses humour in their team environment (Cope et al., 2011). Despite the various interpersonal functions of humour (e.g., enhancing relationships, maintaining social dominance; Martin et al., 2003), there is a dearth of literature that examines team comedians and their use of humour within sport teams. Previous research efforts have been generally limited to quantitatively examining the humour styles of coaches (Grisaffe et al., 2003) or athletes (Sullivan, 2013) and associated outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to examine the nature of team comedians on sport teams in depth, focusing on the antecedents of occupancy of this role, specific behaviours, and associated outcomes. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 athletes (4 focus groups) and 9 coaches (1 focus group and 4 individual interviews) from 4 interdependent sport teams. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis of the interview data suggested that the interaction of athletes' personality (e.g., extraversion) and situational factors (e.g., practice vs. in-game) may allow athletes to emerge as team comedians, and that these individuals typically used verbal and physical types of humour. Both positive (e.g., relieving tension within team) and negative (e.g., diverting teammates' attention) outcomes were noted. The current study offers valuable insights pertaining to informal role transmission processes, and emphasizes the dynamic nature of humour within sport settings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".