Determination of the Perceptions of Sport Manager Candidates Related on the Concept of Manager: A Metaphor Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of present study was to determine the perceptions of the candidates of the sport manager on the concept of manager through metaphors. The sample of study consists of a total of 50 sports managers. In order to collect data in the research, a "metaphor form" was prepared to determine the perceptions of sport manager candidates on the concept of manager. In the form of metaphors, the sport manager candidates were asked to complete the sentence "Manager is like ...; because…". In the research, phenomenological design from qualitative research approaches was used. In the analysis of the data, content analysis technique was used. For the reliability of the analysis of the research data, the inter-participants reliability co-efficient was calculated and found to be 91%. By evaluating the data, it was observed that the sport manager candidates produced totally 33 metaphors. All metaphors were collected in 7 different categories. It was determined that the perceptions of the sport manager candidates on the concept of manager mostly “in terms of being indispensable for organizations” category (14 metaphors), “in terms of being authoritarian” category (10 metaphors) and “in terms of being leader” category (8 metaphors). These categories were followed by the categories of “in terms of being a problem solver”, “in terms of unifying”, “in terms of being guide” and “in terms of being fighter”. The most produced metaphors by the sport manager candidates were the Brain, the Leader, the Father, and the Queen Bee. Alive, lifeless, abstract and concrete metaphors were used for the concept of manager.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".