Helping youth sport coaches integrate psychological skills in their coaching practice
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 demonstrated the benefits of psychological skills training for athletes, but few studies have examined how coaches integrate such skills in their coaching practice. Empirical evidence indicates that the coaches have a preference to learn psychological skills in a user-friendly manner with consultant support. The purpose of the current study is to help youth sport coaches integrate psychological skills (leadership, goal-setting, self-awareness, visualisation) in their coaching practice. A sport psychology researcher worked with nine high school coaches from the sport of Canadian football during an entire season conducting interviews, workshops and observations. Findings indicated that the researcher was able to put in place an initiative that helped the coaches integrate psychological skills in their coaching practice. Generally, the coaches indicated that the partnership was beneficial but also mentioned how it could be improved in various ways. Findings are discussed using the current literature on youth development through sport and suggestions are offered to professionals working with youth sport coaches.
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 | 0.021 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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