MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149489581 · doi:10.1080/00050060701648209

Theory and research on coaching practices

2007· article· en· W2149489581 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Psychologist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingEmpirical researchPsychologyEmpirical evidenceEpistemologyApplied psychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date the coaching literature has been dominated by practitioner contributions, and the commercial coaching industry itself has been significantly influenced by simplistic folk psychology and pseudoscientific approaches. There has been a paucity of solid theory and empirical research. Advances in industrial/organisational psychology often occur from adapting theories, concepts and methods from other subdisciplines of psychology. The explicit linking of coaching practice to existing psychological frameworks and empirical research will help develop an evidence-based approach to coaching. Theories and research that may usefully inform coaching practice include Dweck's implicit person theory, Locke and Latham's goal theory, and a range of sociocognitive theories. The application of findings from empirical research guided by theory are far more likely to prove valuable than coaching based on fads, fashion and folderol.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.403
GPT teacher head0.609
Teacher spread0.206 · 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