Investigating the Idiosyncratic Learning Paths of Elite Canadian Coaches
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
Researchers have investigated how coaches, from the recreational to the elite level of coaching, learn to coach. Many different learning situations have been identified in the research, yet the question remains: How is it that one coach's learning path emphasizes certain learning situations as key, and yet another coach's learning path emphasizes quite different situations? Fifteen Canadian Olympic coaches were interviewed to better understand the coaches' idiosyncratic learning-path phenomena. The findings provide an example of: (a) how coaches within a specific and similar context, in this case Olympic level sport, can differ dramatically regarding the importance that common learning situations have played in their development, and (b) how previous learning and experiences influence what coaches choose to pay attention to and therefore choose to learn. The coaches' idiosyncratic learning paths are also discussed in terms of coach development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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