The Binding Force: A Practical Model for Building and Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship in Canadian Intercollegiate Team Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Binding Force: A Practical Model for Building and Maintaining the Coach-Athlete Relationship in Canadian Intercollegiate Team Sport Coaches at Canadian post-secondary institutions have immense responsibilities: operating a successful sport program, managing the academic and athletic success of their athletes and ultimately delivering results, in other words, winning. “When athletes first join a team, they begin to familiarize themselves with their coach, the coach-athlete relationship, the environment, and the system” (Becker, 2009 p. 97) the athlete will compete in. Successful coaches are consistent in who they are (coach attributes), and how they maintain relationships, manage the team environment, and carry out their system (Becker, 2009); they provide a stable environment in order to develop the overall person and student-athlete. To date, the coach-athlete relationship remains to be an area of further exploration within team sport. The coach–athlete relationship is currently defined as a situation shaped by coaches’ and athletes’ interconnected feelings, thoughts, and behaviors (Jowett, 2005, 2007; Jowett & Poczardowski, 2007). This study addresses the need for a more systematic qualitative understanding of the coach-athlete relationship through the eyes of champion post-secondary team sport coaches. The emergence of various themes within the relationship are discussed, demonstrating a reciprocal bond that leads to, and continually feeds the connection between the coach and athlete, even afterwards, once it has been established. The importance of the coach-athlete relationship, its impact, the development, and maintenance are discussed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".