Black Canadian university football players’ perspectives on the coach-athlete relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To develop positive coach-athlete relationships, coaches can acknowledge and support their players’ sociocultural backgrounds (e.g., ethnicities, genders, races). This is particularly important in connecting with marginalized athletes as the history of sport is intertwined with identity politics, racism, and exclusion. To date, little is known about the role of race in coach-athlete relationships from the perspectives of marginalized individuals. The purpose of the current study was to explore the coach-athlete relationships of Black, Canadian university football players and their coaches from the players’ perspectives. We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine Black football players from five Canadian universities coached by individuals of different racial backgrounds. Using a reflexive thematic analysis, we co-created two overarching themes addressing participants’ racialized experiences inside and outside of sport, including their understanding of Blackness, as well as perceptions on how to improve coaches’ cultural literacies. From our findings, we understood that most Black athletes developed strong connections with their Black coaches compared to White or non-Black coaches of color that were characterized by feelings of trust and the ability to express their cultural identity freely. Athletes highlighted the importance of coaches acquiring or strengthening their cultural competency, and provided examples, advice, and descriptions of what they believed constituted an effective coach. By exploring racial aspects of coach-athlete relationships, this study contributes to coaching science literature and cultural sport psychology by emphasizing the need for coaches to develop cultural competency aptitudes when working with diverse 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".