MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140252057 · doi:10.1260/1747-9541.7.2.301

Promoting Long Term Athlete Development in Cross Country Skiing through Competency-Based Coach Education: A Qualitative Study

2012· article· en· W2140252057 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hailey R. Banack, Gordon A. Bloom, William R. Falcão

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingPsychologyApplied psychologyAthletesMedical educationPhysical therapyPsychotherapistMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coach education programs in Canada and abroad have recently been framed around Long Term Athlete Development (LTAD), a seven-stage model that is based on the physical, mental, emotional, and cognitive development of children and adolescents. To date, limited empirical research on LTAD exists. The primary objective of this study was to identify whether individuals who completed a coach education course acquired an understanding of LTAD and whether they integrated this knowledge into their coaching practice. The secondary purpose was to identify information that could be used to improve the coach education program as well as the effectiveness of youth sport coaching in cross-country skiing. Results indicated the course was an effective technique for delivering the core principles of LTAD to coaches with little or no prior knowledge of the concept. As well, coaches successfully integrated the principles of LTAD into their coaching practices. These results are discussed in regard to improving the effectiveness of youth sport coaching.

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

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports Science & CoachingSame topicMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsFrench-language works237,207