MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023333473 · doi:10.1260/174795406778604609

The Development of Coaching Knowledge

2006· article· en· W2023333473 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingPsychologySection (typography)Special sectionEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coaches are known to fulfill many different roles including leader psychologist, friend, teacher, personnel manager, administrator, fundraiser and role model. The papers presented in this special issue emphasize these different roles by highlighting how coaches learn and how they foster an optimal learning environment. In the first section of this discussion article, will briefly summarize the main issues covered in the five target papers. will then propose that the learning environment of coaches needs to be put into a larger conceptual framework that would allow one to account for the variability of experiences that coaches go through before becoming a coach. The third section of this paper will describe three different settings in which coaches learn their skills. Finally, I will offer some concluding remarks and briefly outline directions for future studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.862
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it