Coaches of athletes with a physical disability: a look at their learning experiences
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
Although coaching has become a popular area for research, little is known about coaches of athletes with a disability (Cregan et al., 2007; DePauw & Gavron, 1991, 2005). The purpose of this study was to explore how disability sport coaches learnt to coach and, more specifically, how they learnt through interactions. Recent disability sport research has revealed that coaches work with their athletes to enhance their learning (Cregan et al., 2007; OâNeill & Richardson, 2008); as such, athletes also participated in this study. Data collection included 20 semi-structured interviews and 14 non-participant observation sessions with five coach-athlete dyads. A thematic analysis was conducted (Braun & Clarke, 2006), which revealed that coaches from various backgrounds commonly learnt through informal learning situations, most frequently through interactions with others. It is suggested that organizations nurture these informal situations and offer more disability-specific nonformal and formal situations to enhance coachesâ learning opportunities.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it