Exploring How the COVID-19 Pandemic Impacted the Coach–Athlete Relationship for Travel Sport Coaches: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the COVID-19 pandemic, maintaining the quality of the coach–athlete relationship (CAR) became a significant challenge for travel sport coaches. The first aim of this study was to explore the coaches’ perceptions of how the CAR’s characteristics (i.e., closeness, commitment, and complementarity) were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The second aim was to explore the differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in CAR quality from the coaches’ perspective. Fourteen travel/club coaches from Ontario took part in 90-min semistructured interviews. Generally, coaches believed that their closeness was maintained, commitment levels improved, and complementarity decreased within their CAR. Past relationships between the coach and athletes helped to maintain their closeness. The resiliency of athletes was thought to aid in the increased commitment. Lack of face-to-face interactions hampered complementarity. Three themes—barriers, variability, and benefits—emerged as differences within the CAR during the pandemic. Recommendations from this study are that coaches focus on the characteristic of complementarity to enhance their CAR quality following the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".