Describing and classifying coach development programmes: A synthesis of empirical research and applied practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coach development, coach development programmes are conducted to change coach behavior in a specific domain. To facilitate understanding of this growing field, the current synthesis review of coaching literature was conducted to generate classifications of coach development programme types. To identify coach development programmes described within academic research, a supplemental search of an earlier systematic review was conducted. In addition, a broad Internet search was used to identify publically available descriptions of coach development programmes. After extracting information describing the resulting 285 coach development programmes, the research team distinguished 16 coach development programme domains of focus, classified within professional, interpersonal, or intrapersonal domains. Five organizational contexts were also identified in relation to “where” and “why” coach development programmes were conducted, and the coaching context and mode of delivery were also classified. As an effort to bridge applied and empirical realms, the continued use and development of these classifications will facilitate the further progress and synthesis of coach development literature.
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 | 0.066 | 0.152 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.045 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".