Coach behaviors and athlete satisfaction in team and individual sports.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coach can have a profound impact on athlete satisfaction, regardless of the level of sport involvement. Previous research has identified differences between coaching behavior preferences in team and individual sport athletes. The present study examined the moderating effect that an athlete's sport type (i.e., individual or team) may have on the relationships among seven coaching behaviors (mental preparation, technical skills, goal setting, physical training, competition strategies, personal rapport, and negative personal rapport) for predicting coaching satisfaction. Moderated multiple regression analyses indicated that each of the seven coaching behaviors were significant main effect predictors of coaching satisfaction. However, sport type (i.e., team or individual sports) was found to moderate six of the seven relationships: mental preparation, technical skills, goal setting, competition strategies, personal rapport, and negative personal rapport in predicting satisfaction with the coach. These findings indicate that high coaching satisfaction for athletes in team sports is influenced to a greater extent by the demonstration of these behaviors than it is for individual sport athletes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it