Understanding Sources of Knowledge for Coaches of Athletes with Intellectual Disabilities
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
BACKGROUND: Recent research has investigated development of coaching knowledge; however, less research has investigated the development of coaches who coach athletes with intellectual disabilities. The purpose of this study was to understand how coaches of athletes with intellectual disabilities gain their knowledge. METHOD: Forty-five Special Olympics Canada coaches participated in structured telephone interviews investigating actual and ideal sources of coaching knowledge. Coaching knowledge was categorized across the dimensions of competition, organization and training. RESULTS: Coaches primarily learned by doing and by consulting with coaching peers. Information about ideal sources of coaching knowledge demonstrates that coaches would value structured coaching courses, learning from mentors and from administrative support, in addition to learning on their own and from peers. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that a broader approach to education should be incorporated into coaching athletes with intellectual disabilities. Recommendations for achieving such goals are provided.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it