MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2551315010 · doi:10.1177/1747954116676113

Development of the Assessment of Coach Emotions systematic observation instrument: A tool to evaluate coaches’ emotions in the youth sport context

2016· article· en· W2551315010 on OpenAlexafffund
Veronica Allan, Jennifer Turnnidge, Matthew Vierimaa, Paul Davis, Jean Côté

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyIntrapersonal communicationAthletesApplied psychologyInterpersonal communicationContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Reliability (semiconductor)Social psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research on emotions in sport focuses heavily on athletes’ intrapersonal emotion regulation; however, interpersonal consequences of emotion regulation are garnering recent attention. As leaders in sport, coaches have the opportunity to regulate not only their own emotions, but also those of athletes, officials, and spectators. As such, the present study set out to develop an observational tool, demonstrating evidence of validity and reliability, for measuring coaches’ overt emotions in the youth sport context. Categories were derived and refined through extensive literature and video review, resulting in 12 categories of behavioural content and eight emotion modifiers ( Neutral, Happy, Affectionate, Alert, Tense, Anxious, Angry and Disappointed). The final coding system is presented herein, complete with supporting evidence for validity and reliability. As a tool for both researchers and practitioners in sport, the Assessment of Coach Emotions (ACE) offers enhanced insight into the contextual qualities underlying coaches’ interactive behaviours.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sports Science & CoachingSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207