Personal and situational factors influencing coaches' perceptions of stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaching has been recognised as a demanding and potentially stressful occupation. The extent to which coaches' perceive their occupation to be stressful is likely to be influenced by various personal and situational factors. The purpose of this study was to identify coaches' levels of perceived stress and examine the personal and situational factors that may influence coaches' perceptions of stress. In total, 512 coaches working with university, college, Canada Games, and/or nationally identified athletes completed this study. Coaches completed an online survey, which included questions regarding demographics, work/job-related considerations, and aspects relating to their contract. Coaches also completed the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). Overall coaches indicated relatively low levels of perceived stress (M= 15.13 out of 40). Demographic factors, job-related characteristics, and certain aspects of their contract were associated with coaches' perceptions of stress. Particularly, unclear expectations, long-working hours (>40), lack of agreed upon evaluation criteria, higher salaries, and a lack of social support were related to higher perceptions of stress. As such, the findings of the current study indicate that enhancing coaches' perceptions of control related to their job by reducing role ambiguity and providing clear expectations may help to reduce coaches' perceptions of stress.Acknowledgments: Coaching Association 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".