Clarifying the Concept of Communities of Practice in Sport
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 an attempt to describe learning outside of the usual official curriculum, concepts such as workplace learning, nonformal learning, informal learning, and incidental learning have been used in the fields of teacher education, workplace pedagogy, and sport. These ‘outside-of-the-classroom’ learning opportunities are characterized by the important role that peers play in the learning process. Participation in communities of practice (CoPs) provides one such opportunity for learning. Recent interest in this concept for coach education and in sport has resulted in an increasing number of studies in which researchers promote CoPs, but not all these studies operationalise CoPs clearly and according to Etienne Wenger's framework To clarify this situation and further stimulate the discussion around the potential of CoPs in sport, we present a brief history and description of the concept, compare it with related notions, and describe some recent studies on CoPs in sport.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it