Insights into the Importance of Relational Coaching for Masters Sport
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
Research into the Masters (or adult) sport context has revealed important socially mediated participatory motives for Masters athletes, including a strong connection between their learning in sport and the relationships they have with their coaches. The purpose of this insights article was to identify and describe links between relevant relational perspectives in sport coaching and dominant themes extracted from research pertaining to the psychosocial aspects of coaching adults. Three theoretical perspectives are purposively explored: interdependence theory, humanistic coaching, and andragogy. We considered how these parallel bodies of literature ascribe to the particularities of coaching adults to provide insight on how to frame effective coaching approaches and coach–athlete interrelations for this unique athletic sample. We make the case for ongoing research using an andragogical model of coaching in Masters sport in understanding how coaching Masters athletes is a complex and nuanced phenomenon.
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