Examining High School Teacher-Coaches’ Perspective on Relationship Building With Student-Athletes
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
Adult leaders in sport can exert considerable influence on young athletes’ development but this influence is mediated by the quality of the relationship that is formed between both parties. The purpose of the current study was to examine high school teacher-coaches’ perspective on relationship building with student-athletes. Teacher-coaches (20 men, 5 women, M age = 37.0 years, age range: 25–56 years) from Canada took part in semistructured interviews. Results indicated how the participants believed being both a teacher and a coach was advantageous because it allowed them to interact regularly with student-athletes. The teacher-coaches devised a number of strategies (e.g., early-season tournaments, regular team meetings) to nurture relationships and believed their recurrent interactions allowed them to exert a more positive influence on student-athletes than adult leaders in a single role. In terms of outcomes, the teacher-coaches believed their dual role helped increase their job satisfaction, positively influenced their identity, and allowed them to help student-athletes through critical family (e.g., alcoholism, divorce) and personal issues (e.g., suicide). The current study suggests that the dual role of teacher-coach is beneficial to both teacher-coaches and student-athletes. However, future work is needed, paying attention to how teacher-coaches can further nurture quality relationships with student-athletes.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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