MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2267226504 · doi:10.1123/jce.4.3.44

Enhancing Volunteer Youth Sport Coaching Practices through Intergenerational Dialogue

2011· article· en· W2267226504 on OpenAlexaffabout
John A. Naslund, Garfield Pennington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Coaching Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingPsychologyAction (physics)AthletesEliteQualitative researchApplied psychologyMedical educationPedagogySociologyPolitical scienceMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A major determinant of the quality of youth’s experiences in community sports is their relationship with their coaches. It is highly desirable to investigate the practices employed by these coaches, many of whom are volunteers, as their values and coaching strategies can be encouraging for young athletes or can be demoralizing and ruin their sporting experience altogether. The unique perspectives of volunteer youth sport coaches are rarely considered, and by providing them with opportunities to openly reflect upon their practices, it may be possible to assist these coaches in improving their practices and ultimately improve the sporting experience for youth. This article describes an action research project whereby two volunteer youth sport coaches from British Columbia, Canada, engaged in a practical demonstration for using reflective dialogue in order to examine their own coaching practices. Both coaches, who are 50 years apart in age and whose coaching experience ranges from seven to over 50 years, coach different sports at different levels (elite to participation) for youth aged 11-18 years. The coach participants engaged in action research through journal writing, open discussions, and audio-recorded reflective dialogues over a period of six months. Qualitative analysis of the dialogues revealed six key themes that were significant to both coaches: motivation, confidence building, team spirit, relationship building, communication, and coaching values. The coaches comment on the effectiveness of reflective dialogue as a strategy that could help volunteer youth sport coaches better understand the importance of their roles as coaches, identify challenging aspects of their coaching, and serve as a means to further develop their coaching skills and knowledge. In addition, the coaches comment on their generational differences, and discuss the importance of having senior coaches with extensive experience mentor younger less-experienced 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Coaching EducationSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207