MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312192197 · doi:10.1080/21640629.2022.2161119

Editorial: In the interest of discussion, debate, and future possibilities

2022· editorial· en· W4312192197 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Coaching Review · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent literature, constraints-led approaches have been promoted for practice design to coaches of American football.While we agree that this approach would represent a useful tool, we put forward that ecological approaches alone are insufficient to address the complexity and diversity of real-world sporting contexts, so coaches must carefully consider how constraints-led approaches might fit within the total coaching process and associated challenges.With this in mind, this paper explores the implications and challenges of constraints-led approaches within the American football environment.In doing this, we consider the context and constraints of the game and their implications for both coaching practice and the implementation of ecological principles.To conclude, we also propose the need for pragmatic balance and consideration of approaches as part of a professional judgement and decision-making process by coaches.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it