Coaches’ Adoption and Implementation of Sport Canada’s Long-Term Athlete Development Model
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 work explores the adoption and implementation of Sport Canada’s long-term athlete development (LTAD) model by coaches and tries to understand the barriers to and enablers of these processes. LTAD adoption was studied in 14 coaches (5 female, 9 male) in seven sports while implementation was assessed among 10 different coaches (2 female, 8 male) from nine sports. Semistructured interviews ascertained coaches’ perceptions of and experiences with the LTAD model in their coaching practice. Coaches adhered to the global vision and general principles of LTAD. However, several barriers to LTAD adoption and implementation were identified. A mismatch between the model’s long-term and the short-term visions of results in sport was perceived as deterrent to LTAD adoption and implementation. Coaches involved in early development sports mentioned a lack of compatibility of LTAD with the demands of their sport. Coaches also perceived complexity in LTAD athlete’s developmental stage determination and the identification of “windows of opportunity” or critical periods. These barriers should be addressed to complete diffusion of LTAD among Canadian coaches.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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