What I Wish I Could Tell My Coach: High School Athletes’ Thoughts on the Performance of Their Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extracurricular high school sports are a major part of the educational experience of students at Strathmore High School (SHS), and coaches play a vital role in meeting the philosophy of education-based athletics by designing an athletics program that adheres to the mission statement of SHS (“Empowering a community of accomplished and caring citizens”) and the philosophy statement of the Alberta Teachers Association (for school athletics programs to provide experiences that will help students grow physically, mentally, emotionally, socially, and morally). The purpose of this project was to survey all of the student athletes at SHS for the 2019–2020 school year to determine if they felt that their coaches were meeting these benchmarks, as well as to ask them to share openly and honestly with their coaches about how they felt they were doing in their coaching role. Student athletes answered nine survey questions. Although they felt that their coaches could improve in the areas of setting clear and realistic expectations, negativity, and favoritism, they felt that their coaches were doing well in creating community and connection, in role modeling, and in creating a fun experience. This information shows the need for greater conversation and consistency between all of the coaches and members of the athletics staff to ensure the mission and philosophy are being met. I hope that the coaches at SHS, as well as at other schools, will use the findings of this paper to reflect on their own coaching practice to determine in what areas they need some improvement and in what areas they are doing well.Subscribe to TPE
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".