Elite Disability Sport Coaches’ Views on Sport Psychology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the coach is a key element in the psychological preparation of the athletes, few is known about whatcoaches from disability sport context think about the importance of psychological preparation. Therefore, thisstudy aimed to explore: 1) the educational background of disability sport coaches, 2) the perceptions of thecoaches on the importance of psychological preparation for their athletes, and 3) the opinions of the coachesregarding the role of sport psychologists. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Portuguese elitedisability sport coaches (n=10; male=8 and female=2; swimming =4, track and field=2, boccia=3 and rowing=1)included in the Paralympic Project London 2012. Standard qualitative methodology and content analysis wereused to analyse the data. The participants revealed an educational background in sport sciences and in sportpsychology. A high status of sport psychology and psychological preparation also emerged from the data. Fullreceptiveness to work with sport psychologists was exhibited, although some participants mentioned barriers tosport psychologists’ intervention (e.g., coach awareness, athlete receptiveness, time, finances). In general, thefindings of this study highlighted the importance of sport psychology in Portuguese disability sport.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".