Exploring Novel Considerations for the Coaching of Masters Athletes
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
In the new frontier of Masters-level sport, coaching approaches with adult athletes may prove to be quite different than with younger cohorts, and therefore demanding of novel and innovative considerations. This paper draws from emerging perspectives in research on Masters athletes (MAs) and interpretations of broader psycho-social and -pedagogical literature to advance an early roadmap guiding practical strategies for coaches and sport programmers to consider when working with MAs. We explore four content areas that may be particularly relevant for coaches working with adult sportspersons, and for future researchers seeking to confirm where coaching practices with MAs may be highly nuanced. They include: (a) tailoring the sport environment to fulfill adults’ involvement opportunities and heighten athlete commitment; (b) helping adult athletes maximize their limited time for doing sport; (c) guiding athletes to use strategies for negotiating age-related decline; and (d) fostering self-determined and engaged learners in the Masters sport context.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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