Martial Arts Leadership: Cultural and Regional Differences in Motivations, Leadership & Communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the aim of better understanding the motivations for studying martial arts, and finding examples of valued leadership skills and methods in instruction, a comparison of martial artists (instructors, students and parents of younger students) was conducted via a survey across several countries: the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Finland. The framework taken to evaluate ‘leadership’ within martial arts is the theory of transformational leadership, developed by Bass [1985]. In this framework, transformational leaders display certain characteristics, such as espousing ideals, acting as role models, and showing care and concern for followers. They are also noted to inspire their followers by formulating a vision and setting challenging goals, as well as stimulating them intellectually to think about old problems in innovative ways. We propose, based on the findings from the international survey, that transformational leadership theory may provide a framework for instructors. The overall results and comparisons of the study may be pertinent to instructors and students of martial arts. For instructors, understanding what students look for in a club in terms of values and characteristics sought through training and leadership styles is valuable. This work could be used to help instructors understand and develop the traits and characteristics that could be used to construct motivational or instructional methods to best achieve goals in their respective curriculum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".