Coaches’ Perspectives on Personal and Psychosocial Development in University Sport
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence suggests Canadian university sport programs can foster positive development. Further, university coaches have claimed to focus on their athletes’ personal and psychosocial development. Despite coaches’ claims, little is known about university coaches’ strategies for enhancing positive development. The aim of the present study was to explore the role of the coach in fostering positive development in the university context from the perspective of coaches. Specifically, this study addressed two research questions: (a) Who was responsible for athletes’ development? and (b) What is the role of the coach in athletes’ development? Semi-structured open-ended interviews were conducted with 14 recommended Canadian university coaches (9 male and 5 female). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive approach. Coaches highlighted the conditions of university sport that foster positive development. In addition, the coaches described how they maximized athletes’ development by establishing a support network, building team culture, and empowering athletes.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it