MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283523069

Coaches Create and Sustain a Community of Practice Within a Club

2013· article· en· W2283523069 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue phénEPS / PHEnex Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubCoachingCommunity of practicePerspective (graphical)PsychologyPedagogyApplied psychologyPublic relationsPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicineArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jeff Normal.dotm 0 0 2011-11-14T19:15:00Z 2011-11-14T19:15:00Z 1 91 519 University of Ottawa 4 1 637 12.0 0 false 18 pt 18 pt 0 0 false false false A Community of Practice (CoP) is a learning entity in which people are involved in ongoing interactions with others while they engage in their activities (Wenger, 1998). The purpose of this article is to explore, from the perspective of two coaching leaders within a figure skating club, how a CoP was created and sustained. Eight in-depth, open-ended interviews were conducted with the coaches. This case study paves the way to understanding that a CoP can be developed and sustained by coaches when they are in an environment where collaborative coaching and learning is the norm and where coaches entering into the system expect it.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.639

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.317 · 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