Moral Disengagement Level of Team Athletes Depending on Unethical Behaviors They Perceived from Their Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study is to determine the correlation between moral disengagement level of team athletes and unethical behaviors they perceived from their coaches by examining moral disengagement level of team athletes depending on unethical behaviors they perceived from their coaches. The target population of the study consists of 305 team athletes whose age average is 20.45 ± 4.68 and who are training with the same trainer for average of 2.01 ± 1.69 years and from basketball, football and volleyball branches. In this study, “Moral Disengagement in Sport” and “Athlete’s Perception about Coaches’ Unethical Behaviors” scales have been used as data collection tools. Descriptive statistics, t test, ANOVA and Pearson Correlation analysis were used for the analysis of data. According to the findings of the study, it was observed that there was a positive low level of correlation between moral disengagement and athlete’s perception about unethical behaviors of the coach. Younger athletes have a higher perception about unethical behavior they perceived from coaches. Moral disengagement scores of male athletes, athletes who did not take part in national team and athletes who were punished were significantly higher. Significant difference was observed in moral disengagement and in the sub-dimensions of the athletes’ perception about their coaches’ unethical behavior scales by branch. When the meeting level of athletes with their coaches in the social environment examined, it was seen that there was a significant difference in all sub-dimensions of the athlete’s perception regarding the coach’s unethical behaviors scale. When athlete’s level of communication with their coaches was examined, there was a significant difference in all sub-dimensions of the athlete’s perception regarding the coach’s unethical behaviors scale. As a result, as the level of unethical behavior that athletes perceived from their coaches increases, the level of moral disengagement also increases.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".