An Evaluation of Canada’s National Coaching Certification Program’s Make Ethical Decisions Coach Education Module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate Canada’s National Coaching Certification Program’s Make Ethical Decisions (MED) coach education module. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2007) model for evaluating training programs was used to frame this study. The study was comprised of two separate phases. In phase one, after completion of the module, 30 coaches participated in a semi-structured interview. The results of this phase of the study indicated that the vast majority of coaches were satisfied with the module and reported that the module impacted their decision-making. Given the recommendations made by the coaches interviewed, namely that the MED module would benefit from the addition of more content information on ethical dilemmas in sport, a second phase of the study was added. In phase two, 3742 coaches completed an on-line questionnaire. The participants identified the types of ethical dilemmas most commonly encountered as well as their desire for further education on these issues in sport. Recommendations are proposed for improving the Make Ethical Decisions module and addressing ethical coaching in general.
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 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 | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".