MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106925256 · doi:10.1123/tsp.20.2.213

Beyond Winning and Losing: Guidelines for Evaluating High Performance Coaches

2006· article· en· W2106925256 on OpenAlex
Clifford J. Mallett, Jean Côté

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Sport Psychologist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityQueen's University
FundersArizona State University
KeywordsCoachingAthletesPsychologyApplied psychologyPerformance appraisalScale (ratio)Measure (data warehouse)Computer scienceManagementPhysical therapyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper proposes a three-step method of evaluating high performance coaches involving feedback from the athletes. First, data are collected using an instrument such as the Coaching Behavior Scale for Sport (CBS-S: Côté, Yardley, Hay, Sedgwick, & Baker, 1999). Second, a summary report is prepared with descriptive information regarding the frequency of behaviors demonstrated by the coach that can be compared to previous results or to a criterion measure. The third step involves appropriate personnel reviewing the report and subsequently providing guidance for individual coach development. This three-step appraisal method provides useful evaluative feedback to coaches and has been used in several sport programs in Canada, the United States, and Australia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it