Comparing Masters athletes with varying degrees of coaching for psychological need satisfaction and frustration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploratory research suggests Masters athletes (MAs; adult athletes >35 years) derive benefits from the coached context. This study sought to compare groups of MAs with varying degrees of coaching for reports of psychological need satisfaction and frustration. A total of 561 individual sport MAs completed surveys assessing psychological need satisfaction and frustration. MAs self-categorized into one of three groups: (1) coached MAs ( n = 284), (2) moderately coached MAs ( n = 92), and (3) non-coached MAs ( n = 185). Analyses comprised ANOVAs followed by Games-Howell post hoc tests. Coached and moderately coached MAs reported greater relatedness satisfaction than non-coached MAs. Coached MAs also reported greater relatedness satisfaction than moderately coached MAs. Coached and moderately coached MAs reported greater autonomy frustration than non-coached MAs, whereas coached MAs reported lower relatedness frustration than moderately coached and non-coached MAs. The findings suggest the coached context assists adult athletes in fulfilling their need for belongingness. Similarly, results imply that receiving frequent exposure to coaching helps MAs experience lower feelings of relatedness frustration. Lastly, findings suggest that the structure provided by coaches can have the inevitable consequence of slightly frustrating MAs’ autonomy. Future research should explore how coach-mediated processes explain MAs’ psychological need satisfaction and frustration.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".