The contribution of extracurricular coaching on high school teachers’ job satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to explore the contribution of extracurricular coaching on high school teachers’ job satisfaction. Specifically, the study looked at how perceptions of the coaching environment (athlete relationships, colleague relationships and opportunities through coaching) influenced teachers’ perceptions of stressors (athlete-related and workload-related) and coaching efficacy, and how this in-turn influenced teachers’ job satisfaction. The sample examined 2949 teachers from across Canada who volunteered as high school sport coaches, above and beyond their regular teaching load. The results supported that the data fit the model well (SBχ2(264) = 973.36, p < .001, SRMR = .08, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .055 CI95 [.052, .059]) and that teachers who reported a positive coaching environment had increased coaching efficacy and decreased perceptions of athlete-related and workload-related stressors. Increased coaching efficacy predicted higher job satisfaction, while increased perceptions of stressors predicted lower job satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".