The parent-coach relationship within elite youth sport: Contentious or cooperative?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has highlighted coach-athlete relationships (Smith et al., 2007), parents' roles (Gould et al., 2006), and program structure (Weiss et al., 2013) as key factors that can facilitate the positive development of elite youth athletes. Bronfenbrenner's (2005) Bioecological Model emphasizes the importance of examining how interacting factors may influence development. At the mesosystem level, it has been proposed that coaches must work effectively with parents (e.g., Hellstedt, 1987; Smoll et al., 2011), but no research has thoroughly examined this relationship at the elite youth sport level. The current study was informed by autoethnographic research design, utilizing the first author's reflections regarding his experiences as a head coach of an elite youth hockey team in the Greater Toronto Area over the past three years. Specifically, I engaged in self-reflections in an introspection process to better understand [my]self and through examining [my] actions and perceptions in reference to and dialogue with those of others (Anderson, 2006, p. 382). Two complex issues within the coach-parent relationship appear to create tension in the common goal of optimizing youths' development. First, consistent with Holt and colleagues' (2008) findings, parents often have a strong sense of expertise, compelling and/or entitling them to step into coaches' roles. Second, parents and coaches appear to have misaligned beliefs regarding boundaries of communication. Reflections are discussed in the context of negotiating tensions, with the aim of coaches and parents working effectively together to optimize young elite athlete' development.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".