Examining Coaches’ Perspectives on the Use of Exercise as Punishment
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
The negative consequences associated with punishment, highlighted by researchers in the parenting and education domains, have stimulated a shift toward more developmentally appropriate methods of behavior modification. Despite the reported negative outcomes linked with punishment use, preliminary research in sport indicates that punishment, specifically in the form of exercise, remains a common strategy in this domain. The purpose of this study therefore was to explore interuniversity coaches’ perspectives on the use of exercise as punishment. Semistructured interviews with eight interuniversity coaches (four males and four females) were conducted. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Participant accounts revealed that exercise as punishment was implemented frequently in a variety of forms (e.g., push-ups and sprints). Perceived benefits for the use of exercise as punishment, such as performance motivation and team cohesion, as well as suggested alternative methods of behavioral modification were also reported. Findings are interpreted in accordance with punishment, shaming, and coach education research. Recommendations for future research and practice are suggested.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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