Storying surfing coaches’ experiences of life skills development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present manuscript we explore three Portuguese surfing coaches' understandings and experiences of their roles and responsibilities concerning life skills development across youth, high-performance and master sport contexts.To achieve this aim, coaches and researchers forged a meaningful partnership over a two-year period, sharing experiences in an open and sincere manner, as well as embracing diversity of thought while rethinking life skills development across coaching contexts.Data collection was conducted through interviews (n = 12) and reflexive journalling.This partnership between researchers and coaches gave voice to coaches concerning athletes' life skills development throughout a range of coaching contexts.These coaches, independent of the coaching context, were influenced by social and cultural forces that made them disregard life skills development and transfer.They were also pressured to value winning and performance development, and positioned the development of life skills as unrealistic coaching pursuits.An interconnected portrait of coaches' roles and responsibilities across coaching contexts may help inform coach development and education programs that consider the diversity of sport programs being delivered in Portugal and elsewhere.Moving forward, more attention may need to be paid towards understanding how cultural, political and social variables influence coaching life skills.For the last 20 years, researchers have conveyed the importance of helping athletes develop a range of sport and psychosocial skills (Bruner et al., 2021;Holt et al., 2017;Koh & Camiré, 2015) and developed diverse ways through which coaches can teach these skills as outcomes applicable beyond the sport sphere (Bean et al., 2018; Kramers
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".