An Exploration of the Content and Quality of Online, Text-Based Coach Development Programs Specific to Parasport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonformal learning opportunities, such as accessing text-based online resources, are an important means of developing parasport coaches’ knowledge of how to coach. However, the focus of such resources, as well as their quality and quantity, are unknown. Using an adapted version of Lefebvre, Evans, Turnnidge, Gainforth, and Côté’s taxonomy of coach development programs, the authors explored and cataloged text-based online resources for parasport coaches identified through a broad Internet search. In addition, the technical quality of these resources was evaluated. After cataloguing and evaluating 136 resources, professional knowledge domains, specifically pedagogy and planning, were identified as the most commonly targeted domains of focus. The least frequently cited professional domains of focus were maltreatment, movement fundamentals, and preventative health and health promotion. Limited resources addressed interpersonal and intrapersonal domains of focus. Resource quality varied greatly, but the overall quality was low indicating that increasing the technical quality of online resources should be prioritized in the future.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".