Evaluation of the Pilot Implementation of the Coaching for Life Skills Program
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
Many forms of mainstream coach education continue to sparingly address content specifically related to positive youth development and/or life skills, instead maintaining a focus on the technical and tactical aspects of sport. The purpose of the paper is to present the evaluation findings of the pilot implementation of the Coaching for Life Skills program, designed to serve coaches operating in the context of high school sport. The study qualitatively explored what participants believed they experienced during their participation in the Coaching for Life Skills program, which was delivered to 68 Canadian high school coaches. Participants took part in one of six three-hour workshop (i.e., three workshops in English, three workshops in French). Of these 68 coaches, 10 voluntarily agreed to take part in individual semi-structured interviews. Findings demonstrated how the participants believed they learned important elements related to the coaching of life skills, particularly in terms of increasing their awareness of life skills, improving coach-athlete relationships, and employing coaching strategies that deliberately target life skills development and transfer.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 it