A citation network analysis of mentoring in sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Specific to sport, mentoring has been described as a highly effective way for coaches to acquire valuable information, learn roles and responsibilities, and improve individual coaching styles and behaviours. Despite these benefits, empirical research on mentoring in sport is limited. This point is especially concerning in the coaching literature where scholars from around the world have emphasized the need for structured mentoring programs (Bloom, 2013). The purpose of this study was to identify and evaluate the sport mentoring literature using citation network analysis (Moore et al., 2005). A comprehensive interdisciplinary literature search was conducted to locate influential mentoring texts (i.e., articles, books, and book chapters). This search resulted in an interdisciplinary mentoring network of 1,819 nodes (i.e., texts) and 10,951 edges (i.e., citation links). In relation to sport mentoring, the findings indicate that this body of research is interwoven into the industrial/organizational psychology literature. Nonetheless, congruent with other mentoring disciplines (e.g., education, nursing), the sport mentoring network remained disconnected (density = 0.062; indegree centrality = 2.97, outdegree centrality = 4.07). Further, the content of texts in the sport mentoring network consisted of mentoring for (a) sport coaches (12 texts), (b) strength and conditioning coaches (five texts), (c) athletes, (two texts), and non-sport (10 texts). Of the sport-specific texts within the sport mentoring network, there were 10 qualitative studies, five literature reviews, and four quantitative studies. The implications of findings will be discussed, including the impact of our findings on coaching science and coach education both in Canada and internationally.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".