International Society of Sport Psychology position stand: scientist practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been a long-standing discourse about science-driven practice, and related, the scientist practitioner, spanning more than 40 years. The International Society of Sport Psychology is devoting considerable attention to scientist practitioners within the recently established International Society of Sport Psychology Registry (ISSP-R) and Supervisor (ISSP-S) designations. The ISSP seeks to expand this discussion by (a) synthesising the literature, and (b) adopting a more geographically expansive outlook towards scientist practitioner knowledge. This position stand is presented in three sections. Section one is focused on the characteristics of the scientist practitioners. Section two exemplifies two approaches (Great Britain and China) in the application of scientist practitioner service. Section three includes six conclusions and recommendations towards the furtherance of this expansive discussion within the international field of sport psychology.
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 | 0.023 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.007 |
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".