The Relative Effectiveness of External, Peer, and Self‐Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux recherches poursuivies sur deux continents ont fait appel à deux variables dépendantes différentes pour étudier l’efficacité relative du coach externe, du pair coach et de l’autocoaching sur la performance des participants (maîtrise de gestion). La première investigation concernait trente étudiants en gestion canadiens. Ceux qui étaient suivis par un coach extérieur présentaient une meilleure adaptation au travail collectif que ceux qui avaient un pair pour coach. La seconde recherche portait sur 23 managers en gestion australiens. Ceux qui étaient suivis soit par un coach externe, soit par eux‐même, ont obtenu des résultats significativement plus élevés que ceux qui étaient accompagnés par un pair. Dans les deux études, le coach externe avait aux yeux de l’intéressé une plus grande crédibilité que le pair. Dans la seconde étude, l’autocoaching était mieux vu que le coaching du pair. La satisfaction relative à l’ensemble du processus était plus forte chez les managers pourvus d’un coach externe. Two studies in two different continents using two different dependent variables examined the relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self‐coaches on the performance of participants in two MBA programs. The first study involved MBA students in Canada ( n = 30). Those who were coached by an external coach exhibited higher teamplaying behavior than did those who were coached by peers. The second study involved EMBA managers in Australia ( n = 23). Those who were either coached by an external coach or who were self‐coached had significantly higher grades than those who were coached by a peer. In both studies, an external coach was perceived by the participants to have higher credibility than their peers. In the second study, self‐coaching was perceived to be more credible than coaching from peers. Satisfaction with the coaching process was highest among the managers who had an external coach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".