Youth Sport Coaches’ Perspective on Positive Youth Development and its Worth in Mainstream Coach Education Courses
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
Positive youth development (PYD) is a framework that has been widely used within sport research to outline sport’s potential as a developmental context. Past research has indicated how coaches play important roles in facilitating PYD through sport and yet, PYD-related material remains largely absent from mainstream coach education courses (CEC). The purpose of the current study was to examine youth sport coaches’ perspective on PYD and its worth in mainstream coach education courses. The participants were twelve Portuguese youth field hockey coaches (one female and eleven males) who coached athletes between four and eighteen years of age. Findings indicated that coaches valued PYD within their coaching philosophy, but were also highly motivated by performance and improving their players’ motor skills. The participants deemed that CEC generally lack PYD-related material, adding that practical strategies informed by the PYD approach should be inherently part of CEC delivery. The findings have practical implications for coach educators, indicating a need and a desire on the part of coaches to have PYD-related content in mainstream CEC.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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