Breaking Coaching’s Rules: Transforming the Body, Sport, and Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Who knew that doing the wrong things could make everything so right?” There can be little doubt that sports’ dominant bioscientific articulation of the athletic body exerts a strong influence on coaches. Yet, on closer examination, this articulation and the practices it produces are not as straightforward as most coaches and scholars assume. Within the sociocultural study of coaching, scholars have drawn on Michel Foucault’s disciplinary framework to analyze many unseen problems and unintended consequences associated with coaches’ normal or everyday (bioscientific) practices. However, one significant aspect of Foucault’s theoretical framework that has received less attention from coaching scholars is how power and discourse work together to produce several coaching “truths.” To address this gap, in this article, we analyze the first author’s experiences as an international middle-distance runner by showing and telling what problems and constraints are produced when coaches, and by association their athletes, defer to a dominant bioscientific articulation of the athletic body in their training. We conclude by discussing the transformative possibilities when these “truths” are broken.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".