Exploring coach behaviours, session contexts and key stakeholder perceptions of non-linear coaching approaches in youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gaining better understanding of coaching pedagogies remains a crucial aspect of developing practice. In particular, pedagogic strategies which do not follow transmission-based, technically focused, approaches have been under-investigated. Furthermore, most investigations into coaching processes have elicited an incomplete understanding of the respective pedagogies due to deficiencies in the methodology such as limited triangulation of methods. This study utilises two systematic observation instruments, field notes, individual coach interviews and parent group interviews in order to investigate non-linear coaching pedagogies in three youth sport environments. The systematic observation instruments revealed a lower rate of coach behaviour than has previously been reported alongside fewer technical interventions and more questioning. The qualitative data revealed three themes; creating an environment of participant centredness, holistic development and authentically situated learning. The methodology effectively elicited understanding of the coaches’ pedagogic strategies. Future research should utilise such methodologies to investigate other sporting environments such as in elite and disability sport, particularly studying those approaches which feature non-linear pedagogies.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".