Comparison of leadership preferences and perceptions among Canadian high school, CEGEP, university and professional football players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted using the Leadership Scale for Sports research instrument on 61 high school, 62 CEGEP, 86 university, and 34 professional football players to determine if these players' preferences for five leadership behaviours differed with respect to level of play, unit of play (offensive and defensive), and team success. The leadership behaviours investigated in this study are training and instruction, autocratic, democratic, social support, and positive feedback. In addition, the data collected was analysed to determine if differences were present between football players' preferences for and perceptions of their unit co-ordinator coach's leadership behaviours taking into consideration level of play, unit of play, and team success. Multivariate and Doubly Multivariate Analyses of Variance Tests were used to interpret the data. No differences were found among the football players' preferences for coaching leadership behaviours at the various levels of play, units of play, and team success. Differences were however found between players' preferences for and perceptions of their unit co-ordinators in training and instruction, social support, and positive feedback coaching leadership behaviours.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".