Burn out, coaching philosophy, and why the end does not justify unethical means – here’s why sport coaches should follow a deontological ethical approach
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 cultural importance of sport across the world is well established, with meaningful significance given to policies that promote participation for health and psychosocial reasons, strong narratives, nation-building, and entertainment formed through the consumption, both contemporary and historical, of performance sport. In this commentary, we argue and provide evidence that any examination of sports culture inevitably ties to ideologies of performance, and that oftentimes this results in approaches to the development of athletes and sportspeople that overemphasize profoundly unethical means of achieving a variety of performance ends. Because of this, our position in this commentary uses a philosophical perspective to justify our proposition, one that espouses a more holistic approach for sport coaches, organizers, and architects that, through supporting athletes and focusing on development, actually mirrors scientific principles for sport performance, more so, we believe, than any ‘win at all costs’ approach.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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