Too many cooks in the kitchen? Exploring the proportion of athlete leaders in relation to social identity and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athlete leadership plays a critical role in sport. However, there is continued debate regarding the ideal number of athlete leaders and its associations with important emergent states and outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate how the proportion of formal and informal athlete leaders within a team relates to perceptions of social identity and team performance (i.e., perceived and objective). In total, we analyzed 789 end-of-season survey responses from Canadian university athletes (nmen = 544, nwomen = 245; Mage = 20.68 years) representing 25 interdependent sport teams across three seasons. The questionnaires considered athlete demographics, self-reported leadership roles, and athlete perceptions of social identity and team goal achievement. Objective team performance was measured using regular season winning percentage. During our preliminary analysis, the proportion of formal and informal leaders was described and compared to ideal proportions suggested within the literature. Our main analysis involved correlations and multi-level or simple linear regressions to examine associations between the proportions of formal and informal leaders with emergent states and team outcomes (ps < .05). Social identity was not significantly correlated or predicted by leadership proportions. A greater proportion of formal leadership was significantly negatively correlated with team goal achievement. Similarly, greater proportions of both formal and informal leadership were significantly negatively correlated to, and predictive of, winning percentage. These results indicate that the proportion of formal and informal leaders have important implications for team performance. These findings are situated within the literature and study strengths, weaknesses, and implications are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".