Adult swimmers' reports of personal and social developmental benefits associated with having a Masters swim coach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been recent interest in the relationship between Masters sport participation and older adults’ positive development (Baker, Fraser-Thomas, Dionigi, & Horton, 2010). Coaches influence many technical and performance aspects in Masters sport (Rathwell, Callary, Ambrogio, & Young, 2014), and may also impact different outcomes relating to personal and social development. This presentation explores Masters swimmers’ perceptions of personal and social developmental benefits associated with having a swim coach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with ten competitive swimmers aged 45-65 years (5 male, 5 female, M weekly hrs of swimming = 4, range 2.5-7). Masters swimmers were interviewed about experiences within coached competitive swim programs and were prompted to discuss their coaches’ influence on their personal development inside and outside of swimming. Interviews were explored using an interpretative phenomenological analysis (Smith, 2010). Results show swimmers were divided in their opinions about their coaches’ influence on developmental outcomes. Some swimmers felt their coaches helped develop their personal confidence, feelings of competence in swimming, and commitment to learning. Further, they described how coaches facilitated opportunities for community involvement, leadership, and social exchanges. Conversely, other swimmers noted their coaches’ roles had limits and felt coaches were only responsible for athletic development. Finally, many swimmers initially disclaimed the coaches’ role, yet subsequently articulated developmental outcomes attributed to their coach. Findings highlight unique developmental outcomes and experiences for adult athletes (Baker et al., 2010). Further, these results suggest that when compared to working with younger cohorts, coaches have different roles in developing personal and social outcomes when coaching Masters athletes. Funding for this research was provided by Cape Breton University’s Office of Research and SSHRC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".