In the IR field it is clear that the value of a system depends on the cost and benefit profiles of its users. It would seem obvious that different users would prefer different systems. In the TREC-9 filtering track, systems are evaluated by a utility measure specifying a given cost and benefit. However, in the study of decision systems it is known that, in some cases, one system may be unconditionally better than another. In this paper we employ a decision theoretic approach to find conditions under which an Information Filtering (IF) system is unconditionally superior to another for all users regardless of their cost and benefit profiles.It is well known that if two IF systems have equal precision the system with better recall will be preferred by all users. Similarly, with equal recall, better precision is universally preferred. We confirm these known results and discover an unexpected dominance relation in which a system with lower recall will be universally preferred provided its precision is sufficiently higher. 相似文献
Background: Within the context of sports coaching and coach education, formalised mentoring relationships are often depicted as a mentor–mentee dyad. Thus, mentoring within sports coaching is typically conceptualised as a one-dimensional relationship, where the mentor is seen as the powerful member of the dyad, with greater age and/or experience [Colley, H. (2003). Mentoring for Social Inclusion. London: Routledge].
Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the concept of a multiple mentor system in an attempt to advance our theoretical and empirical understanding of sports coach mentoring. In doing so, this paper builds upon the suggestion of Jones, Harris, and Miles [(2009). “Mentoring in Sports Coaching: A Review of the Literature.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 14 (3): 267–284] who highlight the importance of generating empirical research to explore current mentoring approaches in sport, which in turn can inform meaningful formal coach education enhancement. The significance of this work therefore lies in opening up both a practical and a theoretical space for dialogue within sports coach education in order to challenge the traditional dyadic conceptualisation of mentoring and move towards an understanding of ‘mentoring in practice’.
Method: Drawing upon Kram’s [(1985). Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in Organisational Life. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman] foundational mentoring theory to underpin a multiple mentoring support system, 15 elite coach mentors across a range of sports were interviewed in an attempt to explore their mentoring experiences. Subsequently, an inductive thematic analysis endeavoured to further investigate the realities and practicalities of employing a multiple mentoring system in the context of elite coach development.
Results: The participants advocated support for the utilisation of a multiple mentor system to address some of the inherent problems and complexities within elite sports coaching mentoring. Specifically, the results suggested that mentees sourced different mentors for specific knowledge acquisition, skills and attributes. For example, within a multiple mentor approach, mentors recommended that mentees use a variety of mentors, including cross-sports and non-sport mentors.
Conclusion: Tentative recommendations for the future employment of a multiple mentoring framework were considered, with particular reference to cross-sports or non-sport mentoring experiences. 相似文献
