Coaches’ Coaching Competence in Relation to Athletes’ Perceived Progress in Elite Sport
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
This article looks at whether higher levels of perceived coaching competencies focusing on relational issues,were associated with higher satisfaction among elite athletes with their progress in sport. In order to explore this,we investigated elite athletes’ perceptions of their coaches’ coaching competence (CCS) and how theseperceptions related to their own satisfaction with their progress in sport during the last year. The CCS measurescore competencies for coaches as defined by the coaching profession (Moen & Federici, 2011). Our hypothesiswas partly confirmed as the results revealed that higher perceived coach competencies were associated withhigher athlete satisfaction with their progress in sport. This result applies for all the five dimensions of the CCS.However, the group of athletes who are most dissatisfied with their progress in sport do not follow this trend, asthey in general score higher on the different dimensions of the CCS compared to the nearby levels.
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) | 0.000 | 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