Examining coaches' and parents' interpretations of punishment in youth baseball
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To investigate coaches' and parents' perspectives of punishment use in sport. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted face-to-face with ten participants: Three NCCP qualified male coaches, three mothers and four fathers, recruited from the same elite baseball team. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. Results: Many participants identified exercise, benching, and yelling as forms of punishment used in sport to modify athlete behaviour. The use of exercise, such as running laps, was reportedly the most commonly accepted form of punishment, with assistant coaches and parents endorsing its use based upon its benefits for physical development and sport performance. All participants agreed yelling was the most detrimental punishment for athletes to endure. Although the head coach refrained from using exercise and yelling as punishment, based upon the belief that these were ineffective methods of behaviour modification, his assistant coaches continued to use these practices. Benching was perceived as strategic method, rather than a method of punishment. Moreover, the concept of punishment was often referred to erroneously as discipline. Conclusions: It appears punishment is used frequently as a tool to influence or control athletes' behaviours. Furthermore, the participants justified the use of punishment for achieving a desirable outcome, thus normalizing its use in sport. Many participants were unable to distinguish punishment from discipline, suggesting that punishment methods are mistakenly used as forms of discipline. The findings of this study suggest improvements in coach education are required, specifically in the area of positive disciplinary strategies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".