A Comparison of the Emotional Intelligence and Psychological Skills of National and International Taekwondo Referees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Officiating is a challenging role within sports that requires many psychological skills as well as emotional intelligence, the ability to recognize and moderate personal emotions and the emotions of others, while simultaneously processing the information to make an informed decision about the present situation. Although many studies have investigated these characteristics within athletes and coaches to improve sports performance, officials overseeing these competitive environments have been largely ignored. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate the psychological skills and emotional intelligence of national and international taekwondo referees. Participants were 10 international and 10 national referees who completed four measures of psychological skills and emotional intelligence. National referees scored significantly higher on emotional intelligence and most psychological skills. This was surprising, suggesting either national referees feel more emotionally and psychologically competent perhaps from more regular practice and/or international referees are more self-aware of their limitations and less likely to score themselves highly on a self-report measure. Future research should consider comparison of referees across genders, nationality, levels, sport, and other demographics.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".