MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976225716 · doi:10.1123/iscj.2018-0068

What It Really Means To ‘Think Outside The Box’: Why Foucault Matters For Coach Development

2019· article· en· W2976225716 on OpenAlex
Jim Denison

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Sport Coaching Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingRelevance (law)Power (physics)PedagogySociologyPsychologyEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper I discuss the relevance (and power) of teaching coaches how to question the ‘truth’ of their everyday coaching practices by beginning to ‘think with Foucault.’ My insights derive from my experiences teaching a graduate course called, “Coaching ‘Knowledges’: The Social Dimensions of Performance Sport”, that I designed in 2018 as part of the University of Alberta’s Masters of Coaching degree. More specifically, through my reflections on my past coaching, my present teaching, and the process of writing this paper, I consider how the act of problematizing, as informed by such Foucauldian concepts as docility, discipline, and power-knowledge, can serve to transform coach development and with that, of course, coaching and all that that entails.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.315 · 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