Brazilian university coaches' role in facilitating positive development through university sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the last decades, several researchers have attempted to understand coaches' role in positive development (PD) within youth sport contexts such as competitive recreational sport. In recent years, coaches' role in fostering PD has been explored within the context of university sport. However, most research on university coaches has been conducted in the Canadian context, with minimal investigation of non-English speaking countries such as Brazil that is highly representative of university sport in Latin America. The purpose of this study was to understand Brazilian university coaches' perceptions about their role in facilitating PD. In total, 16 university coaches were sampled (14 male and 2 female) from all regions of Brazil. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Through a thematic analysis, three themes (coaching philosophy, coaching practice, challenges) and twelve subthemes emerged from the data. Coaches perceived university sport as a conducive platform for fostering both performance and PD outcomes, while noting that PD was their priority. Findings showed that teamwork and perseverance were identified as key PD outcomes. However, the coaches found it difficult to articulate PD strategies. Challenges while promoting PD included lack of time and the existence of a 'performance at all cost' mentality. The present study suggests the need for a higher level of reflection towards the current model of university sport in Brazil as more attention needs to be paid to PD-focused coach education programs.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".