Coaching in Brazil Sport Coaching as a Profession in Brazil: An Analysis of the Coaching Literature in Brazil From 2000-2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sport coaches in Brazil have been recognized as professionals since the implementation of law 9696 in 1998. However, little is known about the impact of this law on the production of coaching science in this country. In an attempt to situate the sports coaching research produced in Brazil since then, the aim of the current study was to show an overview of Brazilian publications from 2000 to 2015. Eight journals were selected and a review was performed in 425 issues of the journals from 2000 to 2015. As a result, 82 published articles were analyzed. On average, five articles were published each year, with 81.7% of the articles published from 2009 to 2015. The findings illustrate that 37.7% of the articles were focused on coaches’ thinking and 29.5% on coaches’ behaviors, 48.7% used qualitative methods, while 40.3% used quantitative methods and 20.9% used mixed methods. Only two articles attempted to explore the impact of the 1998 legislation on the development of sport coaches in Brazil. In general, research on sport coaching in Brazil seems to be emerging on an international level, as there has been an increase in publications over the past seven years, especially in the lead-up to the Rio2016 Summer Olympic Games.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".