How coach leadership is related to the coach-athlete relationship in elite sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the association between coach leadership and the coach-athlete relationship. Eighty-one elite athletes ( M = 20.4 years; SD = 3.8; 58% female and 42% male) responded to questionnaires pertaining to their coaches’ leadership behaviours and the quality of their relationship. The overall model for predicting the quality of the coach-athlete relationship according to perceived coach leadership behaviours explained 61% of the variance. Three transformational leadership behaviours were positively associated with the quality of the coach-athlete relationship: individualized consideration, appropriate role-modelling, and fostering acceptance of group goals and teamwork. Based on a gender comparison, men perceived higher levels of leadership pertaining to role-modelling and intellectual stimulation, in addition to higher levels of quality for the coach-athlete relationship. This research emphasizes the importance of engaging in transformational leadership behaviours with regards to associations with perceptions of the coach-athlete relationship in elite sport contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".