Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on athletes’ experiences, however, there remains a lack of attention examining the impact of the pandemic on coaches’ experiences. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine Ontario sport coaches’ perspectives on the implications of the pandemic on their experiences. As part of a large-scale survey of Ontario coaches’ experiences in sport, an open-ended question was asked regarding the implications of COVID-19 on the coaching population. In total, 591 participant responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. According to participants, most of the cited outcomes of COVID-19 were negative, although some positive aspects were cited. Negative outcomes of the pandemic included adapting coaching methods and practices, insufficient coach supports, declines in coaching confidence and skills, lack of meaningful interpersonal connections, mental health concerns, job and financial instability, unclear guidelines on safe returns to sport, and loss of athletes and athletic programs. Conversely, positive impacts included having time to reflect on their coaching pursuits and alternative interests and to engage in professional development. These findings highlight the importance of understanding coaches’ experiences during the pandemic and may be used to inform recommendations for supporting coaches post pandemic.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.013 | 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".