“One Piece of a Big Puzzle”: Understanding the Roles of Coach Developers Through Interorganizational Relationships in Canada’s Coach Education System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coach developers (CDs) are an integral aspect of the coaching education system in Canada, as they are responsible for the delivery of the National Coaching Certification Program (NCCP) to coaches. A means of understanding the role of CDs within the Canadian coaching education system is to gain insight into the enablers and challenges of the interorganizational relationships (IORs) between the stakeholders (e.g., organizations, CDs, and coaches). The purpose of this insights paper was to use IORs to understand the CD relationship with other stakeholders in the coach education system as they pertain to enablers and challenges. The use of IORs is a relatively new theoretical concept within the field of coaching and coach education as it pertains to CDs. Through the empirical evidence of three sports—hockey, soccer, and baseball—there were three key themes that were indicative of IORs:the NCCP delivery, communications,andmonitoring/evaluating for effectiveness. On the basis of the findings from this current study, the intended system design of the Canadian coaching education system, which is based on role-set IOR, is a vertical model of top-down governance model. On the basis of the findings from this current study, the intended system design of the Canadian coaching education system, which is based on role-set IOR, is a vertical model of top-down governance, where one decision from the top impacts all the other stakeholders within the system.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".