Student-athletes' personal development through sport participation: The role of the Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) coach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of higher education in the 21st century is multifaceted, with a significant emphasis on personal learning and development through the multiple experiences of the student (Dickinson, 2000; Kuh, 1993, 1995). For many students, these experiences include interuniversity athletics. Interuniversity sport is highly contested however, as positive developmental outcomes are not automatic and cannot be assumed by participation alone (Hartmann & Kwauk, 2011). Instead, it requires the intentional application of conditions conducive to student-athlete development. The purpose of this study was to explore Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) coaches' perspectives on the personal development of student-athletes through interuniversity sport participation. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with head and assistant coaches and explored coaches' perceptions of the purpose of sport in advancing athletes' personal development and the methods coaches use to help support this aspect of student-athlete development. Findings reveal a general inability of coaches to articulate an understanding of what personal development looks like in the context of sport and further to this, coaches demonstrate difficulty making explicit the ways they help facilitate and support the personal development of their student-athletes. These findings extend our understanding of the role coach's play in supporting and facilitating student-athletes' personal growth and development.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".