Positioning the coaching of life skills development and transfer on a continuum of intentionality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the variables within program delivery that facilitate positive developmental outcomes, including life skills development, is a key area of interest within youth sport research (Holt, 2016; Holt et al., 2017). One such variable is intentionality, which in the context of youth sport is defined as referring to the extent to which deliberate decisions are made by coaches and sport organizations to create concrete opportunities intended to maximize developmental outcomes (Walker, Marczak, Blyth, & Borden, 2005). In previous work (i.e., Turnnidge, Cote, & Hancock, 2014), the coaching of life skills has been positioned as dichotomous, with developmental approaches being either implicit (i.e., non-intentional) or explicit (i.e., intentional). To date, the dichotomous framing of life skills development and transfer approaches has perhaps served to undermine the complexity of these processes. In response, Bean, Kramers, Forneris, and Camire (2018) have proposed a model conceptualizing the coaching of life skills along a continuum of intentionality. Within the Implicit/Explicit Continuum of Life Skills Development and Transfer, it is posited that life skills development and transfer can occur across six levels of intentionality: (a) structuring the sport context, (b) facilitating a positive climate, (c) discussing life skills, (d) practicing life skills, (e) discussing transfer, and (f) practicing transfer. These six levels are grounded in the sport psychology literature and will be discussed throughout the presentation. Conceptually, researchers can use the continuum to empirically situate how coaches teach life skills. Practically, the continuum can help coaches frame their approach to 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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 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".