Why the Coach Needs a Philosophy: A Pragmatist’s Suggestions
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
This chapter introduces American pragmatist Henry Bugbee's writing and approach to philosophy, examines his notion of certainty, and describes the import for this reframed notion of certainty for coaching philosophies. Bugbee's approach toward philosophy related directly to personal experience, sifting through streams of consciousness as they appeared to him beside the Schuylkill River or Canadian Rockies. He advocates for attention to these wilderness experiences, especially noting their aesthetic qualities. He uses narratives as a method to understand the process of acquiring knowledge and meaning, detailing his experiences swamping, building a dam, and rowing. In the same way, coaches need to recognize and acknowledge the ordinary experiences that coaches undergo, experiences that have a bearing on the way these individuals develop, interpret, change, and understand their coaching philosophies. The chapter finally three aspects related to both coaching philosophies and also their application to ethical issues are risk; humility; and alertness.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.004 |
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