MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975730033 · doi:10.1123/iscj.2019-0070

Voices From the Field: Q&A With Coach Developers Around the World

2019· article· en· W2975730033 on OpenAlexaff
Bettina Callary, Brian Gearity

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Sport Coaching Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField (mathematics)Public relationsPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsSociologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the editors of the special issue for coach developers, we have rounded out the research-based articles within this issue by seeking the perspectives of practitioners worldwide on what it means to be a coach developer in their respective countries. We ask three simple questions that are answered directly by active coach developers. Their answers bring to light the reality of coach developers’ experiences and their interests in the advancement of the field within the near future. In this short article, practitioners from countries in Africa, South America, Europe, Asia, and Oceania provide valuable input in understanding this burgeoning field.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.105
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.105
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.012
Scholarly communication0.0240.022
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0170.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.338 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Sport Coaching JournalSame topicCoaching Methods and ImpactFrench-language works237,207