Personal and situational factors influencing coaches’ perceptions ofstress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaching has been recognised as a demanding occupation, associated with a range of stressors. The extent to which coaches perceive stress is likely to be influenced by various personal and situational factors. The purpose of this study was to identify coaches' levels of perceived stress and examine the personal and situational factors that may influence coaches' perceptions of stress. In total, 502 coaches working with university, college, Canada Games, and/or nationally identified athletes completed this study. Coaches completed an online survey, which included questions regarding demographics, work/job-related considerations, and aspects relating to their contract. Coaches also completed the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983 Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. and Mermelstein, R. 1983. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24: 385–396. [Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Overall coaches indicated slightly below average levels of perceived stress (M = 15.13 out of 40) compared with norm-values (Cohen & Janicki-Deverts, 2012 Cohen, S. and Janicki-Deverts, D. 2012. Who's stressed? Distributions of psychological stress in the United States in probability samples from 1983, 2006, and 2009. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42: 1320–1334. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Demographic factors, job-related characteristics, and certain aspects of their contract were associated with coaches' perceptions of stress. In particular, unclear expectations, long-working hours (>40), lack of agreed evaluation criteria, higher salaries, and a lack of social support were related to higher perceptions of stress. As such, the findings of the current study indicate that a reduction in perceived stress is likely to be achieved through a multifaceted approach that addresses multiple factors associated with coaching.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".