Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Athlete satisfaction is often a direct result of coaching behaviours (Iso-Ahola & Hatfield, 1986). Effective coaches adapt to various antecedents such as level of competition, age, gender, and ability of athletes; there is not a 'one size fits all' model of coaching (Cushion, 2010). Although coaching science research has focused on many different levels of competition, one area that has received scant attention is coaches' of masters swimmers. This is important since only 15% of Canadian adults meet the current Canadian exercise guidelines (Stats Canada, 2013) and 75% of seniors are physically inactive (Warburton, Ashe, Miller, Shi, & Marra, 2009). Although athlete motivation is determined largely by their own beliefs, thoughts, and values, coaches represent an important motivational factor (Deci & Ryan, 2002). The purpose of this study was to explore masters swimmers experiences of coaching. In particular, this study examined the journey of masters swimmers in sport and identified the various coaching characteristics and behaviours that they felt promoted ideal training and competition environments that led to improved social, health, and performance outcomes. Qualitative descriptive methodology was used to guide the current analysis and Braun and Clarke's (2006) guidelines of thematic analysis were used for identifying, analyzing, and reporting themes within the data. Results revealed three themes which were called master athlete evolution, coaching knowledge and behaviours and outcomes. Despite the differences in career progression and experience of all the swimmers, several common coaching preferences emerged. These coaches established environments where the skills and values taught from their sport were promoted and encouraged in both sport and in life. Creating these positive environments was not about what the coaches did, but rather how they did it. The current coaches fostered environments that provided their athletes with positive social, health, and performance outcomes. This was accomplished through the coaches' influence on their athletes' motivation through their communication, organization, and teaching. Overall, these findings have provided a greater understanding of the preferred coaching behaviours of masters swimmers. Future studies investigating the influence of coaching on masters athletes or the coaching preferences of masters athletes may use these findings to advance research in this domain.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».