Masters Swimmers’ Experiences With Coaches
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
Much work addresses coaches’ contributions to younger athletes; however, the psycho-social coaching needs of adult Masters athletes remain unexamined. This study explored the lived experiences of 10 Masters swimmers (5 male, 5 female; age range = 45-65 years) through interviews. Interpretative phenomenological analysis delved into benefits that swimmers wanted to derive from coaches, how they wished to be coached, and what they liked about coaches. Themes related to (a) swimming and non-swimming benefits; (b) coaches’ experience and professional development, personal attributes, and behaviors holding athletes accountable to training; (c) preferences for coaching instruction; (d) preferences for coaches’ planning/structuring of the practice and program; and (e) preferences for how coaches prepare and interact with them at competitions. We discuss how benefits relate to models of athlete development and identify how preferences link to adult learning literature and models of coaching practice. Finally, we note incongruent findings and limitations to be addressed in future.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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