Building a Successful University Program: Key and Common Elements of Expert Coaches
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
Abstract The purpose of the present study was to determine how expert university coaches of team sports built their successful programs. In particular, key and common elements that enabled these coaches to achieve success were identified. Five expert Canadian female university coaches were interviewed individually. The results of the analysis revealed four elements for developing successful programs. First, coaches possessed a variety of personal attributes that enabled them to display appropriate leadership behaviors depending on the situation they faced. Second, coaches had a personal desire to foster their players' individual growth. Third, coaches possessed thorough organizational skills from which they planned the season and prepared their team for games. Finally, these elements were linked together by the coaches' vision, which involved the athletes buying into the coaches' goals, philosophy, and personality in order to achieve success. These results are discussed in relation to literature on coaching psychology and leadership.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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