Coaching in northern canadian communities: reflections of elite coaches.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addressed geographical uniqueness in relation to elite coaching. The study explores the complexities associated to coaching in northern Canadian communities, and how unique geographical surroundings can affect coaching success. The views of fourteen National and International elite coaches from different northern Canadian communities are included within the study. The respondents were from 9 different sport backgrounds and averaged 17.1 years of coaching experience (range: 8-30 years). Data were gathered using a structured open-ended questionnaire, a focus group, and a follow-up in-depth semi-structured interview. Content was analyzed to uncover emergent themes. Based on the respondents' views, there is indication that despite numerous adversities, rural coaches experience advantages that are unavailable in larger urban centers. Precisely, there is evidence that northern Canadian coaches acquire unique skills while responding to the demands placed on them within their unique communities. Generalizations in regards to coaching development strategies across physical locations are questioned following the findings of the current study. Key PointsThe study explores the complexities associated with coaching in northern Canadian communities and how unique geographical surroundings can affect coaching success.From the respondents' views, there is indication that northern Canadian elite coaches are subject to numerous adversities.Despite numerous adversities, northern Canadian elite coaches experience advantages that are unavailable in larger urban centers.Including context specificity within the elite coaching literature could help to better understand this profession.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".