Understanding the Development of Elite Parasport Athletes Using a Constraint-Led Approach: Considerations for Coaches and Practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the past half-century, the Paralympic Games has continued to grow, evident through increased participation, media recognition, and rising research focus in Para sport. While the competitive pool of athletes has increased, athlete development models have stayed relatively the same. Currently, coaches rely mainly on experiential knowledge, informal communication with colleagues, and theory transferred from able-bodied contexts as main resources to support development for themselves and their athletes. The purpose of this paper was to introduce Newell's constraint-led model and its multidimensional spectrum and practical scope to address the complexities of athlete development. The model consists of three overarching constraint categories (i.e., individual, task, and environment) along with proposed additional sub-categories to capture nuances associated in Para sport in order to provide additional context to coaches regarding athlete development. Utilizing this theoretical framework, we present a holistic approach for coaches and practitioners to consider while addressing athletes' short- and long-term developmental plans. This approach highlights the interactions among factors from a wide range of categories that indirectly and directly impact one another and ultimately influence athletes' developmental processes. It is important to consider the dynamic interaction of constraints over various timescales during development and identify underlying issues to improve athlete experience and maximize developmental opportunities. Coaches and practitioners can use the proposed framework as a guide to key factors to consider for their cohort of athletes. This approach provides a context-specific approach that considers unique factors associated with athletes and their environment.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".