The fast-tracking of one elite athlete swimmer into a swimming coaching role: a practice contributing to the perpetuation and recycling of abuse in sport?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, coach accreditation structures have involved the ‘fast-tracking’ of former elite athletes into coaching roles. This means that former athletes are having their coach education shortened for their time already served in the sport. Some of the reasons for fast-tracking include the perception that former athletes will quickly gain player respect, and, that they will recycle specific culturally entrenched coaching ideologies. The recycling or perpetuation of culturally entrenched ideologies is problematic given that many forms of harassment and abuse have come to be normalised in sporting contexts. Given that the International Olympic Committee Consensus statement highlighted that coach education is key to preventing harassment and abuse in sport, the lessening or shortening of education for former athletes sits in stark contrast to this recommendation. The aim of this research was to investigate whether one Australian elite swimmer who was fast-tracked into a swimming coaching role post-sport recycled abusive practices that she experienced as an athlete. Using a narrative inquiry approach, this research shows how one coach recycled practices which could be classified as physical and psychological abuse (also known as emotional abuse) because she had normalised them as an athlete. The implications of the fast-tracking of one athlete into a swimming coach role meant that she contributed to the perpetuation of physical and psychological abuse in sport.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".