MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366161213 · doi:10.1123/tsp.2022-0104

Understanding the Leadership and Environmental Mechanisms in a Super League Netball Club

2023· article· en· W4366161213 on OpenAlexaff
Don Vinson, Anita Navin, Alison Lamont, Jennifer Turnnidge, Jean Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sport Psychologist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeagueClubPsychologyContext (archaeology)PerceptionAthletesPublic relationsSocial environmentSocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The personal assets framework offers a lens to better understand the relationship between leadership in sport environments and the resultant (athlete) developmental outcomes. This investigation aimed to explore how leadership behaviors and the broader environment of a Super League netball club represented an effective context for athletes to flourish by exploring the interrelations between the personal assets framework’s dynamic elements, namely (a) quality social dynamics, (b) appropriate settings, and (c) personal engagement in activities. Twenty-eight stakeholders were interviewed either individually or in small groups. The results revealed that the environment constructed was shaped by many interrelated mechanisms, and all stakeholders influenced how the dynamic elements intersected with one another. Key leadership behaviors driving the positive environment of the club were related to individualization and generating perceptions of value. The stakeholders’ desire to understand the relationship between their individual contribution and Super League netball was also crucial.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.116 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Sport PsychologistSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207