Coss-Country Ski Coaches and the LTAD Model: Exploring Attributes of Adoption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
0 0 1 343 1957 University of Manitoba 16 4 2296 14.0 Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE The Canadian Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD) model is athlete-centered and coach-driven with the support of administration, sport science, and sponsors. Due to scarcity of referred research conducted on the adoption of the LTAD model by Canadian coaches, this project investigates how the structure of three different cross-country ski (XCS) clubs influenced the way that coaches perceived the attributes of the LTAD model and how this affected their decision to adopt the model. Results are presented in case studies of three XCS clubs (from the perspectives of 13 coaches) using Rogers’ (2003) Diffusion of Innovations theoretical framework to structure the narrative-interview guide, codes, and thematic analysis. Results indicate that the club structures (e.g., size, focus, and objectives) influence coaches’ adoption of the LTAD model. Club mandates, coach education opportunities, and parental knowledge of the LTAD are discussed as useful mechanisms to increase LTAD adoption. Le modele canadien de Developpement a long terme de l’athlete (DLTA) est c entre sur l'athle te, dirige par l'entraineur et soutenu par l'administration, les sciences du sport et les commanditaires. Puisque tres peu d’etudes publiees dans des revues arbitrees se sont interessees a l’adoption du modele de DLTA par les entraineurs canadiens, les auteurs de cette etude ont cherche a savoir comment la structure de trois clubs de ski de fond influence leur perception de leurs entraineurs de ce modele et leur decision d’adopter ou non le modele de DLTA. Organises en etudes de cas, les resultats presentent les points de vue de 13 entraineurs travaillant dans l’un ou l’autre des trois clubs de ski de fond etudies. Les chercheurs ont eu recours au cadre theorique de diffusion de l’innovation de Rogers (2003) pour structurer le guide de l’entrevue narrative, les codes et l’analyse thematique. Les resultats ont confirme l’existence d’un lien entre la structure du club (p. ex., grosseur, orientation, objectifs) et la tendance des entraineurs a adopter ou non le modele du DLTA. L’article precise egalement que le mandat du club, la formation offerte aux entraineurs et la familiarite des parents avec le modele de DLTA constituent des mecanismes utiles qui favorisent l’adoption du modele de DLTA.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".