Research Note: Are executive leaders in sport as good as they think?
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
Leadership continues to be a popular research topic in a number of fields including sport management. Various valid and reliable instruments exist to quantitatively measure executive leaders, typically from the perspectives of either the leaders themselves (SELF form) or from the perspectives of superiors and/or subordinates (OTHER form), or both. However, some theorists (Ashford, 1989; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992) have questioned the utility of self-reports, noting that leaders’ assessments of themselves are generally inflated, inaccurate, unreliable, and unrelated to organizational outcomes.The author examined five data sets for 192 sport leaders and their staff members to determine if they also significantly inflated their perceptions of their leadership. In each of the data sets, the leaders’ perceptions of their leadership tendencies were found statistically to be higher than the opinions of their staff. These results offer many implications for sport management researchers contemplating using “self’ reports exclusively to measure executive leadership.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
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