Reflection and the art of coaching: fostering high-performance in Olympic Ski Cross
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
In preparation for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic Games, the lead author engaged in systematic reflection in an attempt to implement coaching behaviours and create practice environments that promoted athlete development (psycho-social and physical performance). The research was carried out in relation to his work as head Ski Cross coach working with (primarily) three athletes in their quest for Olympic qualification and subsequent performance success in the Olympic Games. This project sought to examine coach-athlete interactions. Of particular interest were coach and athlete responses regarding the implementation of autonomy supportive coaching behaviours in a high context. Autonomy supportive coaching behaviours have previously been strongly associated with positive athlete psycho-social and performance outcomes, however, a paucity of research has examined its implementation in high-performance contexts. Through the use of participant ethnography, it was possible to gain considerable insights regarding athletes’ perceptions of choice, implications of perceived athletic hierarchies, as well as cultural and experience-related influences on training and performance expectations.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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