Ice hockey officiating retention: a qualitative understanding of junior ice hockey officials’ motivations in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An 8% annual growth internationally in registered ice hockey players has spurred the need for more officials. Understanding long-term motivations of these officials can help with retention. The present study utilized self-determination theory (SDT) to examine the motivations of ice hockey officials who continue in the officiating profession. A qualitative analysis of 15 semi-structured interviews of officials in the Ontario Hockey Association (OHA) was employed to gain understanding of ice hockey official motivations. Five emerging themes were uncovered to explain these motivations: (1) family, (2) new perspective, (3) comradery, (4) advancement, and (5) commitment and dedication. The current research attempted to fill a gap in the literature regarding official motivations and retention, as conversely, previous scholars have focused on factors of why officials quit. These findings may be helpful to sport organizations in understanding motivations of officials, so they can then cater to these motivations, and possibly increase retention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".