Elite Athletes’ Experiences of Athlete-Centred Coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athlete-centred coaching is proposed to enhance performance (Lyle, 2002), develop life skills (Kidman & Lombardo, 2010), and prevent athlete maltreatment (Kerr & Stirling, 2008). Despite the consistent recommendation, very little is known empirically about athlete-centred coaching, the extent to which it is implemented, or athletes’ experiences with this style of coaching. The purpose of this study therefore was to examine recently retired elite athletes’ perspectives on their most athlete-centred coach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight male and female recently retired Olympians. The findings of this study provided mixed evidence for coaching behaviours characterized as athlete-centred coaching as defined within the literature. Specifically, at least half of the coaches did not use stimulating questions, one of the most central athlete-centred tenets. Explanations for the mixed findings are discussed and a continuum of athlete-centred coaching is proposed. Lastly, suggestions for future research and practical implications are presented.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.156 | 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 teacher head, 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".