Gaining Insight into Actual and Preferred Sources of Coaching Knowledge
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
Previous research has suggested that current formal coach education programs do not fully meet the learning needs of coaches. The purpose of the present study was to examine actual and preferred sources of coaching knowledge for developmental-level coaches. Structured quantitative interviews were conducted with coaches (N = 44) from a variety of sports. Learning by doing, interaction with coaching peers, and formal coach education were the top actual sources of coaching knowledge. Discrepancies were found between actual and preferred usage of learning by doing, formal coach education, and mentoring. Coaches indicated they would prefer more guided learning and less self-directed learning by doing. Further, differences in preferred sources were identified between coaches wishing to move to an elite level versus coaches wishing to stay at a developmental level. Findings highlight the importance of both experiential and formally guided sources of coaching knowledge and the context-specific nature of coach learning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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