Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the repercussions of negative coaching behaviour in youth sport are more fully understood, it becomes apparent that a unified code of conduct outlining coaching obligations is necessary. Recently Gervis (2010) suggested that a culture of emotional abuse perpetrated by coaches could be endemic in youth sports, and frequent, repetitive exposure to this type of abuse has serious negative outcomes for participants. Research by Raakman, Dorsch, and Rhind (2010) indicated that 52% of all negative coaching behaviours can be deemed psychologically/emotionally abusive. Currently, expectations regarding coach behaviours are couched in the Codes of Ethics of national/local sport governing bodies, with few provisions for accountability (Duffy, 2010). A further analysis of the XXX comments that allowed Raakman et al. to identify emotionally abusive acts coupled with gaps associated with coaching ethics and responsibilities, have allowed the creation of six coaching obligations. These obligations (Respect the (a) physical, (b) sexual, and (c) psychological integrity of the child; Provide reasonable care, discipline, protection, and attention that meet the needs of players; Model behaviors that support a culture of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality, friendship, and fair play among all people; Protect children from exposure to harmful behaviours) are presented as necessities to which the coach should be held legally, principally, and morally accountable.
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 | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".