Findings from a global survey of certified professional co-active coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, research supporting the validity of coaching is rising in both executive and life coaching arenas. Research has revealed that co-active life coaching (CALC), a particular style of coaching, is compatible with health-behaviour theory. However, very little information is known about co-active coaches themselves. The purpose of this study was to develop a comprehensive, applied coaching profile using a global sample of English-reading and -writing certified professional co-active coaches (CPCCs). The survey used for this study was a revised version of the Grant and Zackon (2004) coaching survey. A total of 390 CPCCs who were over 18 years of age, could read English, and had access to the internet participated in the current study. Data on credentialing, prior professional backgrounds, and coaching session structure were collected. Virtually all CPCCs came from a prior profession, most had a college or equivalent degree, and coaching over the phone was the most common method of conducting coaching sessions. In addition, data on coach demographics, coaching careers and CPCCs coaching clientele was collected. This paper elaborates on these findings and makes suggestions for future research.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".