BUILDING EXECUTIVE COACHING AS AN ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE: ESTABLISHING THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY DATABASE AND PEER REVIEW OF PROPOSED ACADEMIC GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR GRADUATE EDUCATION IN EXECUTIVE COACHING
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graduate academic institutions in the United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Ireland, and Scotland were identified via online searches that offered coaching courses for which one earns a grade and are part of a graduate degree; coaching courses for which one earns a grade and that contribute to a graduate certificate but are not part of a degree; coaching courses for which there is no grade but that contribute to a certificate of attendance; and coaching applications and delivery services. Results indicated that there were no academic programs in New Zealand; 17 coaching programs were being offered at universities in Australia; 21 in Canada; 52 in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Scotland; and 124 in the United States. While all offered Master’s level coaching and the UK offered three Doctoral programs, most academic coaching was being used as a development service rather than as academic coursework. Follow-up recommendations were made to support the continued engagement and building of the academic coaching community through this web system.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Metaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.293 | 0.408 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".