Undergraduate Sport Management Education: Exploring Ego Development and Leadership Efficacy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explored students’ ego development and leadership efficacy during an undergraduate sport management program. A sequential mixed-method case study design and associated methodologies were adopted to explore students’ ego development and leadership efficacy during 3 years of an academic program. Results show fluctuations in leadership efficacy for all but one participant. These fluctuations are discussed in relation to ego development in that growth from self-conforming to self-authoring stages of ego development may partially explain fluctuations in how students see themselves and their potential for leadership in the field of sport management. The role of the ego development construct in relation to students’ perceptions of their leadership capabilities highlights that programmatic elements (e.g., thoughtful experiential education) can be consciously developed and strategically leveraged to more accurately target perceptions of leadership prowess among students. The findings emphasize that students’ level of ego development can be fostered through active and effective program delivery.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 it