Mapping Canadian Wheelchair Curling Coaches’ Development: A Landscape Metaphor for a Systems Approach
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study addresses the preintervention phase of a larger project aimed at enhancing the learning capability of the Canadian wheelchair curling coaches’ landscape. To understand the learning leverage features and learning barriers of this landscape, a mapping exercise was conducted. The authors interviewed 16 people, using a semistructured interview guide. The thematic analysis and a landscape metaphor resulted in a map illustrating the main features of the landscape and where the learning potential might be. The findings of this study suggest that geographical isolation, the high costs associated with coach training, and the low number of athletes are all barriers to coaches’ learning. Therefore, with the information gleaned from this phase, an intervention for these coaches should be designed to prioritize meaningful learning opportunities, incorporate influential people noted by coaches, and leverage opportunities at training camps and competitions to mitigate the barriers identified. The landscape view allows for a systems approach that considers the potential of involving the different levels of the sport system to best serve the learning needs of coaches. Rather than focus on individual coach learning, research is needed to better understand how the landscape approach can build learning capability within sport organizations.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it