Psychological skills used by Canadian minor ice hockey officials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of psychological skills and their utility in enhancing athletes' sport performance has been well documented and is not questioned. However, when it comes to understanding officiating performance, the sport psychology literature is severely lacking. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the use of psychological skills by Canadian minor ice hockey officials. The Athlete Coping Skills Inventory (ACSI-28; Smith, Schutz, Smoll, & Ptacek, 1995) was modified for an officiating context by changing the original coachability subscale into one that reflected feedback from both supervisors and coaches. Responses from the resulting 35-item questionnaire were obtained from 255 ice hockey officials (91.4% male) from two Canadian provinces. Officials certified in Levels 1 through 4 were asked to indicate on a scale from 1 Never to 5 Always how often they acted or thought in a certain way. Officials in the higher levels as compared to the lower levels reported (a) using more goal setting strategies, F(3, 229) = 4.28, p = .006, (b) feeling more confident in their officiating abilities, F(3, 230) = 5.02, p = .002, (c) feeling better able to concentrate during games and able to handle unexpected situations better, F(3, 229) = 4.41, p = .005, (d) performing better under pressure, F(3, 227) = 10.44, p = .000, and (e) staying more positive and calm during games, F(3, 228) = 2.69, p = .047. Discussion will revolve around the implications for psychological skills training.Acknowledgments: SSHRC/Sport Canada sport participation joint research initiative
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".