Fitting in and getting fit: a post-structuralist analysis of athletes’ experiences of less disciplinary coaching practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last two decades a number of coaching researchers have used post-structuralism to show how strict training protocols can limit athletes’ performances and development. To counter problematic effects from highly disciplinary practices, Denison and colleagues have called for coach developers to assist coaches to implement less disciplinary coaching practices. Although the head coach is central in this work, understanding how athletes experience less disciplinary coaching practices is critical. Towards this end, we interviewed 14 university endurance runners after the first author worked collaboratively with their head coach to help him learn how to develop and implement a number of practices that were less informed by discipline’s techniques and instruments. Despite making these changes, our findings revealed that the ongoing presence of a range of normalising and objectifying processes tied to dominant understandings of effective coaching and athlete development continued to exert their influence on the athletes. In this respect, designing and implementing less disciplinary coaching practices was not enough to challenge the long-standing legacy of discipline within endurance running. This led us to conclude that undoing the effects of discipline requires a much more concerted pedagogical effort from coaches, and as such, greater support and collaboration from coach developers.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it