An Exploration of Canadian and Nigerian High Performance Women Wrestlers’ Authentic Leadership Development Experiences in a Male-Dominated Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport management scholars have uncovered benefits from adopting an authentic \nleadership style among sport coaches (Kim et al., 2020), sport administrators/athletic directors \n(Cotrufo, 2014), and non-profit sport organization board members (Takos et al., 2018). However, \nthere has been no scholarly attempt to learn about the experiences of high-performance women \nwrestlers who might aspire to become authentic leaders. Given the ongoing disparities between \nmen and women leaders in sport organizations, arguably more should be done to understand the \nexperiences of (and then support) future sport leaders who are women. Thus, this research study \naddresses these gaps by answering the research questions: (1) What are the authentic leadership \ndevelopment experiences of Canadian and Nigerian high-performance women wrestlers? (2) \nWhat are the formal and informal authentic leadership development experiences of women who \nparticipate in a male-dominated sport? (3) What are the perceived strengths and weaknesses of \nformal and informal authentic leadership development training among Canadian and Nigerian \nhigh-performance women wrestlers? Participants (n=11) engaged in one semi-structured \ninterview that revealed their mostly informal authentic leadership development (Luthans & \nAvolio, 2003) experiences as members of their respective national teams. Analysis of the \ntranscripts (65,342 words and 188 pages) followed Braun & Clarke (2006). \nFindings revealed five major themes and several sub-themes. Canadian and Nigerian \nhigh-performance women wrestlers’ authentic leadership development was found to be impacted \nand influenced by the athletes’ background influences and parental support. Participants reported \ndeveloping authentic traits (i.e., resilience, optimism, confidence, and hope) that supported their \ndevelopment as authentic leaders both on (and off) the mat. Participants shared their experience \nbeing bullied and body-shamed for their participation in a male-dominated sport and indicated \nfeeling both supported by and frustrated with their national sport organization/federation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".