The processes of developing the coach-athlete relationship: a case study in women’s university sport
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
The purpose of this research was to describe and interpret the processes of developing the coach-athlete relationship in a women’s university sports team across one competitive season. Data were generated from observations of 19 team practices and 11 games, and two individual interviews with the coach and three athletes. Participants’ unique perspectives of developing the coach-athlete relationship were examined through the use of Jowett’s (2007) 3 + 1Cs model. Findings highlight the ambiguous and often contradicting ways that participants understood and interpreted the processes of their coach-athlete relationship, due in part by the performance and social agendas at play. This research makes a contribution to knowledge about the processes of the coach-athlete relationship in a team environment and application of the 3 + 1 Cs model by primarily attending to its processes rather than outcomes. In doing so, we showed some of the complexities in these processes and the challenges this offers to coaches and athletes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it