Coach development as assemblage: mobilising assemblage thinking to examine coach learning within an endurance-running coach development intravention
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
In this paper, we examine the learning of nine high-performance endurance running coaches over a seven-week poststructuralist-informed coach development workshop. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of assemblage as a novel analytical framework we explore the production of difference within the context of our learning assemblage, and why thinking and coaching differently remain challenging. Connecting content (e.g. coach learners, coach developers, learning materials and technologies, virtual and physical spaces) and expression (e.g. coaching norms and statements, privileged coach development knowledges and curricula) within a range of empirical materials generated throughout the workshops made visible multiple sociomaterial forces that reproduce coaching as a modernist formation, but also, more hopefully, possible lines of flight for coaches and coach developers (new ways of thinking and practicing) that have the potential to reconfigure endurance-running coaching in ways that are arguably more ethical and sustainable. We conclude by discussing the implications of these for the planning and doing of poststructuralist informed coach development work.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it