From the athletes' perspective: How do coaches shape the quality of athletes' experiences in parasport?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While coaches of able-bodied athletes have been studied extensively, empirical research examining parasport coaching practices remains largely limited. In other words, although coaches are commonly recognized for their important role in the sport environment, few studies have explored the influence of coaches on athletes' experiences in parasport. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore athletes' perceptions of how coaches shape the quality of their experiences in parasport throughout development. As part of a larger study examining the factors that influence the quality of parasport participation, a diverse sample of athletes with physical disabilities (N = 21) participated in a two-part life history interview. After broadly outlining their sport history, participants responded to questions targeting the role that coaches played in shaping their experiences. These experiences were the foundation of participants' broader conversations about effective coaching in parasport. Using a thematic analysis, three overarching themes were identified and interpreted as pillars of quality coaching in parasport: (a) consideration, (b) collaboration, and (c) professionalism. How the three pillars are balanced to create quality experiences for athletes was related to the specific coaching context, ranging from entry-level or recreational to the developmental stream and high performance. Juxtaposed against these themes, athletes also described ineffective coaching practices stemming from experiences of ableism in parasport. Whereas these findings reveal nuances to effective parasport coaching, the resulting themes are situated within established theories about coaching and leadership in numerous domains. Practical recommendations for parasport practitioners are discussed.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Coaching Association of Canada grant awarded to Jean Côté and a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship awarded to Veronica Allan (Award # 767-2015-1633).
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".