A qualitative process map of mental health promotion through the coach-athlete relationship in Canadian university sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flourishing is a way of understanding mental health as more than the absence of mental illness, and consists of emotional, psychological, and social well-being (Keyes, 2002). Given that Canadian university student-athletes and coaches appear to reciprocally impact each other's flourishing (Pankow et al., 2021a; 2021b), the purpose of this study was to identify how flourishing can be promoted through coach-athlete relationships in Canadian university sport. Thirteen student-athletes, six coaches, two administrators, and two support staff participated. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted iteratively alongside analysis, following Miles et al.'s (2018) pragmatic qualitative approach to generate a process map. The process map began with the creation of shared goals by the student-athlete and coach. Collaboratively developed goals were more likely to be meaningful to the student-athlete and coach, leading to the pursuit of goal-oriented growth. The student-athlete and coach had different roles in promoting goal-oriented growth. The student-athlete had to learn about and apply the available resources. The coach was responsible for providing resources, teaching the student-athlete about those resources, and providing the student-athlete opportunities (time and space) to use those resources. If the student-athlete and coach engaged with the resources in ways that promoted the student-athlete's goal-oriented growth, both were likely to experience flourishing outcomes (i.e., enhanced emotional, psychological, and social well-being). This process was influenced by the quality of the coach-athlete relationship along with individual, relational, and environmental facilitators. This process map provides a starting point for future research to examine the promotion of flourishing in Canadian university sport.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".