Psychological contract in the volunteer youth sport coach environment: the community sport club perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: In order to provide a more complete understanding of the psychological contract in the volunteer youth sport coach setting, this study advances previous research examining the coaches’ psychological contract by exploring community sport clubs’ expectations of their coaches, and what they expect to provide in return.Design: Focus groups with three community sport clubs that provide both recreational and competitive team sport programming.Findings: Findings revealed sport clubs have common transactional and relational expectations of themselves and their volunteer coaches. The sport clubs’ most important expectations of their volunteer coaches are creating a positive experience for participants (relational) and fulfilling the assigned coaching role (transactional). The most important expectations that sport clubs have of themselves are club administration (transactional) and coach support (relational). There was some variation in the expectations associated with recreational versus competitive level coaches. Additionally, orientation meetings and handbooks are used by the clubs to communicate their expectations.Implications: The findings extend knowledge of the psychological contract in the volunteer youth sport coach setting to the clubs’ perspective, and has implications for aligning respective expectations with volunteer coaches, which may impact volunteer retention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".