International Perspectives of Strategic Team and Player Development in Diverse Amateur/Grassroots 60+ Small-Sided Football Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the significant growth of amateur/grassroots over-60s (60+) small-sided football in diverse indoor and outdoor settings around the world, scant attention has been afforded to related research, coach education, and strategic team and player development initiatives within these unique seniors‘ football contexts. Drawing upon case study methodology using multiple-case design, this paper examines whether and how Strategic Team and Player Development (STPD) initiatives are implemented in diverse amateur/grassroots 60+ small-sided football coaching contexts. Data suggest there is substantial interest among players and coaches for age-appropriate STPD initiatives, which require organization-specific support structures and integrated, progressive, and evidence-based activities customised for the unique needs and competitive circumstances of players/participants. STPD initiatives can significantly enrich participant experiences and maximize program outcomes such as player and team skills and sustained participation. STPD initiatives in these contexts are still in the early stages, both theoretically and practically. While there are many challenges and areas for improvement, strategic organizational support including a commitment to customised football coach education can be the basis for implementing STPD in diverse amateur/grassroots 60+ small-sided football contexts. Key challenges and implications for customised football coach education are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".