Exploring the use of individualized consideration by minor hockey coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transformational leadership has been presented as a tool for coaches to foster positive youth development. One component of this concept is individualized consideration (IC), where leaders show care through supporting their followers’ individual needs. Examining the unique context of minor hockey will provide a more nuanced and complex description of IC. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to demonstrate how minor hockey coaches consider individual differences and tailor their practice to athletes’ needs. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 male minor hockey coaches whose teams consisted of 9- to 13-year-old, predominantly male, athletes. Findings show these coaches demonstrated the use of IC through three steps (a) gathering information about their athletes (e.g. engaging in interactions), (b) assessing individual needs (e.g. developmental) and (c) acting to support IC (e.g. adjusting coaching practices). Findings suggest (a) IC can be implemented to support basic and more complex needs of athletes, (b) IC can be implemented with teams of athletes and (c) the context of minor hockey is constraining the implementation of IC.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".