MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3039583614 · doi:10.11575/prism/37956

The Influence of Peer-to-Peer Learning via Technology on Youth Soccer Coaches’ Neuromuscular Training Warm-up Exercise Error Detection

2020· dissertation· en· W3039583614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Larissa Mikayla Taddei

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSports Performance and Training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)PsychologyApplied psychologyPeer reviewPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer scienceMedical educationMedicinePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To evaluate whether a peer-to-peer (P2P) learning technology integrated instruction (intervention) workshop, compared to a standard in person instruction (control) workshop improves coaches’ self-efficacy and ability to identify neuromuscular training warm-up exercise errors. Methods: Calgary Minor Soccer Association clubs (n= 6) agreed to participate in a randomized controlled trial. In each club, one of each type of workshop were randomly allocated to the scheduled dates. Coaches (n=85) randomly attended a control or intervention workshop. At the end of the workshop, the soccer NMT warm-up exercise test, a video-based test where coaches identify common NMT exercise errors, was completed. At the beginning and end of the workshop, the soccer NMT warm-up self-efficacy scale was completed to assess coaches’ self-efficacy in their ability to identify NMT exercises errors on a 7-point Likert scale. Results: Eighty-five youth soccer coaches attended the control (n=41) or the intervention workshop (n= 44). Mean NMT warm-up exercise test scores were 72% (95% CI: 68.38 - 76.44) for the control and 71% (95% CI: 67.50 - 79.38) for the intervention workshop. Mean change in NMT warm-up self-efficacy scores were 0.98 (95% CI: 0.56 – 1.40) for the control and 1.77 (95% CI: 1.41 – 2.14) for the intervention workshop. Multivariable linear regression analyses indicated that workshop delivery method was not associated with the exercise test score (beta= -3.45, 95%CI: -10.80 - 3.91, R2=0.13) but was associated with a greater difference in change of self-efficacy scores for the intervention workshop (beta= 0.97, 95%CI: 0.26 – 1.89, R2=0.13). Conclusions: A P2P learning technology integrated instructional workshop did not alter coaches tested ability to identify exercise mistakes but did increase coaches’ self-efficacy in identifying exercise mistakes compared to a standard in person workshop.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicSports Performance and TrainingFrench-language works237,207