Exploring Parent-Related Coaching Stressors in British Tennis: A Developmental Investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to explore the stressors that tennis coaches' associate with parents and examine how such stressors may differ depending upon a player's developmental stage of participation, seventeen focus group interviews were conducted with a total of 70 coaches; 28 coaches of sampling stage players, 24 coaches of specializing stage players, and 18 coaches of investment stage players. Content analysis of the focus group data revealed three general dimensions of stressors: direct coaching stressors, player-related stressors, and external and system-based stressors. Sampling-stage coaches reported many stressors relating to parents' understanding of tennis and development. Specializing-stage coaches highlighted multiple stressors concerning parental pressure and involvement. Investment-stage coaches replicated many of the specializing stage stressors, but also highlighted various methods to reduce parent-related stressors. Results are discussed in relation to previous research. Practical implications to reduce the stressors British tennis coaches encounter 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".