Burn out, coaching philosophy, and why the end does not justify unethical means – here’s why sport coaches should follow a deontological ethical approach
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.
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 | 0.017 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".