Coach and peer normative perceptions in relation to youth athlete effort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between perceived social norms emanating from two different channels (i.e. coaches and peers) and individual self-reported effort in youth athletes. Female youth athletes (N = 145, Mage = 13.9 years) attending a five-day summer volleyball sport camp self-reported their perceptions of their coach's approval of effort during the camp (coach subjective norm), how many of their peers exerted effort during the camp (peer descriptive norm), and their own effort during the camp. Results from a regression analysis indicated that perceived social norms associated with both channels were positively associated with self-reported effort, accounting for 13% of the variance. These results suggest that both coach and peer normative information may be important external sources of motivation associated with individual effort in youth sport. This highlights the possible importance of including normative information from either source, and suggests that both coaches and peers may be important channels of normative influence. If replicated, the current findings have implications for understanding the social influences associated with athlete effort in youth athletes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".