“A Really Strong Bond”: Coaches in Women Athletes’ Experiences of Inclusion in Parasport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women within parasport experience discrimination due to marginalization associated with gender and disability. In this study, the authors gain the insights of women parasport athletes about the affordances and constraints to inclusion with an emphasis on the role of coaches, using an ecological approach. Guided by qualitative description, the authors conducted individual and focus group interviews with ten women experiencing disability to explore their experiences and perspectives of inclusion in parasport. Two primary themes were identified: (a) within parasport and (b) beyond parasport, emphasizing the critical role of relationships with coaches and athletes to experiences of inclusion. The discussion highlights the multilevel influences and specific barriers that challenge inclusion, such as few numbers of women athletes, the need for coach expertise, and co-ed playing environments. In doing so, the authors also offer specific recommendations for coaching in women’s parasport.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".