A conceptual model for performance crises in team sport: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper, we outline a conceptual model for performance crises in sports teams. We derive a definition of team performance crisis from conceptualizations from other research areas (economics, communications sciences, etc.) and stress theories. Combined with sport psychological literature, this knowledge is adapted to match the specifics of team sports. We define a team performance crisis as continuous underperformance across games, accompanied by team members’ threat states, and the inability of a team to cope, resulting in low team functioning. The empirically testable crisis model represents a team performance crisis as a downward spiral with the severity of the crisis determined by how far along the spiral the team has come. There are different stages: crisis predispositions (stage 0), a crisis trigger (stage 1), and the further crisis process (stage 2). While stage 1 depicts what characteristics of a situation have the potential to trigger threat states, stage 2 represents how this leads to the inability to break free. After proposing the model, we differentiate it from other constructs examining the phenomenon of performance deviations and why they are insufficient in explaining lasting underperformance in teams. We provide directions for future research and conclude with practical implications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".