Youth athletes' perceptions of humanistic coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humanistic coaching focuses on promoting athletes' personal growth and development by empowering athletes and fostering a collaborative coach-athlete relationship. Humanistic coaching entails a higher involvement of athletes in their learning process, sharing responsibilities, and making decisions about the team. The purpose of this study was to investigate the experiences of student-athletes of coaches who had been trained to use humanistic principles to foster personal development. Focus group interviews were employed to investigate the experiences of 23 student-athletes from three different schools in low socio-economic communities in a major Canadian city. An inductive thematic analysis was performed to identify common themes across focus groups. Athlete descriptions of their coaches demonstrated they were aware of coaches' humanistic behaviours, which they felt positively impacted their sporting experiences. Moreover, the athletes described their coaches as being engaged in their lives beyond sport, helping with personal issues and getting involved in their education. Athletes also described having a trusting relationship with their coaches, and reported learning both sport and life skills from them. Finally, athletes reported improved developmental outcomes such as confidence, motivation, autonomy, and decision-making – both in sport and in school. These findings extend the current humanistic coaching literature by providing athlete accounts of humanistic coaching in a developmental youth sport setting, and by supporting the notion that effective coaching requires a balance between multiple coaching approaches. Additionally, it illustrates the value and importance of training youth sport coaches to adopt humanistic coaching principles as a way to foster youth development through sport.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".