Olympic and Paralympic coach perspectives on effective skill acquisition support and coach development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of skill acquisition specialists within sport systems has become more prominent and imbedded in daily training environments with coaches; however, literature pertaining to their role and contributions to effective coach development is very scant. The objective was to extend our understanding of the coaches’ perception of the role of, and relationship with, a skill acquisition specialist to identify key factors of effective support that shape coach behavior and ultimately enhance athlete performance. Semi-structured interviews with two National coaches with experience and podium success in multiple Olympic/Paralympic Games, Commonwealth Games, and World Championships was conducted. Three distinct narratives were identified: representing various experiences of the coaches in their sport (‘the unplanned journey’), their relationship with the skill acquisition specialist (‘more than just a skill expert’), and how this impacted athletes’ development (‘keys to success’). As part of the relationship development process, aspects of coaches’ philosophy were challenged. In addition, the skill acquisition specialists had to display a wide range of skills in the pursuit of shaping coaching behaviors that could further enhance athletes’ performance. Required skills included, but were not limited to, bridging the gap between scientific literature and practical application, ensuring knowledge was logical and aligned with the specific needs of the coach and cultural context, demonstrating trust and accountability, displaying personal and social skills and an ability to engage athletes and obtain their approval. Crucially, while overlapping themes occurred, the skill specialists needed to be adaptable to each unique working relationship and this emerged over time.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".