A developing critical consciousness: A case study of one coach's perspectives on social justice in Canadian high school sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High school sport coaches have been identified as key non-parental sources of influence who are well positioned to help adolescent athletes achieve success in and beyond sport. In addition to being responsible for athlete performance outcomes, scholars have highlighted the broad range of psychosocial outcomes over which coaches have significant influence. In view of recent social movements (i.e., Black Lives Matter, #MeToo) that have led citizens to organize and act in the name of positive social change, there is a need to examine how high school sport coaches can leverage their roles to address social inequity and to promote social justice among their adolescent athletes. In the present study, one coach's (White, male) attitudes on social justice in Canadian high school sport were explored through the lens of the critical positive youth development (CPYD) framework – more specifically, the Freirean notion of critical consciousness. Two semi-structured interviews over a 3-month timespan were conducted with the coach via the Zoom platform, and findings were subjected to a reflexive thematic analysis. Findings highlight this coach's developing critical consciousness with regards to his coaching practice, which centres on a reactive approach to addressing social justice issues. Findings also point to a desire for greater access to educational resources related to social justice. Practical considerations are offered for how coaches can be better educated to promote social justice in the high school sport context, specifically by using the CPYD framework to foster coaches' critical consciousness.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".