Actual and ideal sources of coaching knowledge of elite Chinese coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globalization and advances in technology have created a context where knowledge changes and circulates faster than ever. In high-performance sport coaching, coaches increasingly move from country to country to join national teams – becoming ‘migrant coaches’. From a coach development perspective, it becomes relevant to investigate how coaches from different countries learn to coach and what would be their ideal sources of knowledge acquisition. Unfortunately, there is a major gap in the English literature regarding Asian coaches. Thus, a study with Chinese gymnastics (Gym) and rhythmic gymnastics (R-Gym) coaches has been conducted. Eighty coaches completed a questionnaire on their actual and ideal sources of knowledge acquisition; 16 of these were interviewed. Data show that the coaches acquired their knowledge (actual) mainly through ‘being an athlete’ and ‘having a mentor’. Ideally, they would like to have a better balance between these two sources and formal learning situations (courses, seminars, etc.). Another key finding is the barrier resulting from the lack of English knowledge, which is an important limit for Chinese coaches wishing to gather information from abroad, especially through the Internet.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".