Softball coaches' perceptions of athlete entitlement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mainstream media has been increasingly describing Millenials, and particularly, athletes, as entitled often deeming them as a plague and a curse. Within the psychology literature, entitlement has been defined as "the expectation of special privileges over others and special exemptions from normal social demands" (Raskin & Terry, 1988, p. 890). However, in the academic sport community, entitlement is a neglected topic. This research aims to understand entitlement in softball as well as its impact on team functioning from a coach's perspective. A qualitative, phenomenological approach was used to conduct the research. Eight participants from the United States and Canada who currently hold or have held a head coaching position in softball at a junior college, college, or university level were asked to discuss their experiences coaching athletes who they believe have high perceptions of entitlement as well as the impact they believe these athletes have had on team functioning. Softball coaches described the characteristics of those athletes that they felt had high perceptions of entitlement as lacking in work ethic, expecting rewards, feeling superior, uncompromising, mentally weak, and difficult to coach. Consequently, the impact on the team was primarily negative and disruptive to the team's chemistry. Coaches used strong words such as "cancer" and "poison" to describe the impact of these players on the team. The findings of this research project show that entitlement exists in softball and the effects of athletes holding such perceptions can be extremely disruptive.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".