Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This article aims to place the emergence of coaching in its appropriate historical context and address the lack of historical attention given to this subject. In tracing the path the coach has taken in becoming a management concept, the article seeks to draw attention to its unique history as an object that has been transformed into a popular management concept. Design/methodology/approach This article reviews how coaching has been portrayed in various books, articles and research papers since appearing as a transportation object in the 15th century. Findings The coach began as a technology used for transportation, evolved into an object that was associated with a type of status and then became a prominent character in sport, before ultimately becoming an influential management concept. Across historical periods discussions of coaching have tended to involve individuals who experience coaching. A consistent feature of these discussions is the issue of professionals and professionalism. Research limitations/implications It is difficult to determine the date when our contemporary notions of the coach were first discussed, as these discussions originally involved slang, and a lag exists between talking about coaching and writing about it. Practical implications Concerns have been raised in the management discipline regarding the influence of research on practice and as advocates of coaching seek professional and scientific legitimacy, this historical review offers a perspective that can enhance discussions of these issues. Originality/value This paper places the popularity of this concept within a historical context that outlines how the idea of coaching evolved from a form of technology to a concept associated with a wide array of management topics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".