Orientasi Matlamat & kecenderungan keagresifan instrumental di kalangan pemain bola baling remaja
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to identify goal orientation and instrumental aggression tendencies among handball players participating in the MSSP Kinta Dua District tournament. In this study, the following aspects were examined; goal orientation, individuals that influence instrumental aggression and situations perceived to influence the athletes’ likelihood to aggress. The ‘Task and Ego Orientation in Sport Questionnaire’ (TEOSQ) by Duda and Nicholls(1991) was used as the research instrument, together with the ‘Judgement About Moral Behaviour in Youth Sport Questionnaire (JAMBYSQ) by Stephens, Bredemeier & Shields(1993). A total of 166 athletes (85 males and 81 females) from the teams participating in the quarter finals of the district level handball tournament were taken as research samples. The results reveal that athletes’ participation in the MSSP Kinta Dua District handball tournament was task-oriented. There was a significant difference between the task orientation of male and female athletes, while for ego orientation, no significant difference was found. It was also discovered that the athletes have the tendency to use instrumental aggression that was influenced by their teachers or coaches. The situations that influence the male athletes to aggress is the ‘draw score’ situation, while the female athletes will use instrumental aggression in situations that ‘arouse their spirits’
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".