Characteristics of a person-centred coaching approach
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
Within this paper we propose a need to better understand what is meant by a person-centred approach to coaching and in particular, to consider the intention that drives coach behaviours. Much of the extant coaching literature focuses on pedagogical models and theories of learning. Without detracting from this important body of work, we suggest that a holistic approach requires a greater focus on coaches’ inter- and intra-personal knowledge. In this paper, video stimulated recall was used to guide interviews with Alpine ski coaches, to explore their thought processes and intentions behind person-centred delivery. The findings suggest these coaches adopted other-centred intentions that are facilitated by an accurate self-assessment, a big picture perspective and a willingness to learn. Consequently, the concept of humility is proposed as a guiding principle for person-centred coaching, and a conceptual model is presented as a solution to the challenges we identify throughout the paper.
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 | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it