ArticleJournal for person-oriented research2023
Mechanistic or Relational Worldview for Talent Identification Research in Sport Science? Both-But With a Preference!
Article in Journal for person-oriented research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of motivation in selection processes-comparing sports and business.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2024Article
- Person, Population, Mechanism. Three Main Branches of Psychological Science.Journal for person-oriented research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper situates talent identification research in sport science within the broader context of developmental science, offering a conceptual framework informed by two (meta-)theoretical worldviews: the Cartesian-split-mechanistic and processual-relational worldviews. Although these worldviews are not explicitly named in the field of talent identification research, we demonstrate their implicit adoption through theoretical and methodological discourse. After comparing applications, benefits, and limitations of each worldview, we briefly discuss whether their bodies of knowledge are incompatible, competitive, or complementary. We suggest each worldview provides complementary insights with a penchant for generating nomothetic and group-specific and type-specific and idiographic knowledge, respectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.