An intensive longitudinal investigation of a parent–coach’s practices and strategies ‘in action’; challenges and opportunities
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
Sports coaching and sport psychology researchers have explored the challenges for parents who undertake the role of coach. Arising from previously research on the parent–coach, a number of strategies have been suggested to assist parent–coaches to be more effective as they negotiate the dual roles. No research has examined the issues, nuances and possibilities of these strategies and practices “in action” from the perspective of the parent–coach. An intensive longitudinal diary approach was used by one parent–coach to document and reflect on coaching practice when applying the researcher proposed strategies. This study adds to scholarship that examines the dual roles of the parent–coach by outlining what works and what does not in terms of previously outlined strategies. We found that the unproblematic presentation of the two roles, in previous research, fails to prepare the prospective parent coach for the complexity of managing the dual roles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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