Coaching special Olympics: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Special Olympics enables individuals with an intellectual disability across all continents to take part in sport year-round. Through its mission, Special Olympics provides a setting for athletes that aims to foster performance, participation, and personal development. Coaches play a central role in achieving these outcomes. As such, this scoping review aims to answer the following question: What is known about Special Olympics’ coach training and practices? Method Our scoping review was conducted according to Peters et al.'s (2020) guidelines. Keywords pertaining to Special Olympics, Program evaluation, and Coaches were searched in six databases to extract articles published between 1988 and October 1, 2021. Results In all, 16 studies were included in our scoping review. Of these studies, nine included information on coach training and 13 included information on coach practices. No randomized control trials were identified. Conclusions There is currently very little knowledge on Special Olympics coach training and practices. Moreover, there is no existing data to support the effectiveness of Special Olympics coaches formal training on coaches’ practices nor on athletes’ outcomes. There is an urgent need for research in this field.
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 | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".