Performance support team effectiveness in elite sport: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In pursuit of competitive advantage, elite sport organizations are increasingly relying on the support of diverse sport medicine and sport science staff, who are collectively referred to as the performance support team. Whilst it has been suggested that the accumulative input from diverse multiteam systems has the potential to contribute to a resultant whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, team effectiveness is reliant on more than the mere aggregate of diverse experts. The aim of this narrative review was to appraise, summarize, and apply pertinent performance support team literature to a conceptual framework for teamwork and team effectiveness in sport. It specifically explores team effectiveness, with reference to its inputs (i.e. characteristics of individual, team, and environment) and mediators (i.e. team processes and emergent states). This review provides an insight into the individual (i.e. disciplinary knowledge, technical competency, and interpersonal qualities), team (i.e. team composition and leadership), and external (i.e. hierarchical arrangement and environmental factors) inputs that are necessary for team effectiveness, as well as the mediators (i.e. behavioral processes and emergent states) that translate such inputs into desired outcomes.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".