Exploring the emotions and importance of coaching sport: An Identity Theory perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance that people attribute to a particular role they occupy has significant implications on their behavior (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Therefore, following the theoretical framework of Identity Theory, the purpose of the present study was to conduct an exploratory study to gain an understanding of the importance coaches ascribe to their role as a coach. Participants included 4 male, and 3 female coaches, who ranged in age from 22 to 61 (M = 42.86; SD = 14.40) years of age, and who reported coaching male (n = 1), female (n = 4), or both genders (n = 2) of athletes. Furthermore, participants indicated that they had coached between 5 and 35 (M = 17.57; SD = 10.44) years, were certified with the National Coaching Certification Program at level 2 (n = 3), level 3 (n = 1), or level 4 (n = 3), and primarily coached fastball, football, rowing, rugby, synchronized swimming, and track and field. Participants were recruited to participate in a semi-standardized interview through personal correspondence with the researchers. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and then NVIVO 9 was utilized to assist with the data analysis. Three primary themes emerged from the data; the self, emotions, and passion. Findings of the present study will contribute to the need within Identity Theory literature for measurement development and refinement (Stryker & Burke, 2000) by generating a list of items that will be used to formulate an instrument designed to assess coach identity salience.Acknowledgments: Funding provided to the primary researcher by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".