“We haven’t agreed on that, and you’ll never get people to agree on that.” Contestation within the Canadian sport coaching professional project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on the findings from a larger institutional ethnographic study exploring gender, work, and professionalization in sport coaching in the Canadian university sport system, this paper brings to light the contested nature of the sport coaching professional project in Canada. We specifically focus on the efforts of the Coaching Association of Canada to advance its Chartered Professional Coach designation as the preeminent coaching credential and mechanism by which to progress its vision of the sport coaching professional project. However, key findings demonstrate that the Coaching Association of Canada and Chartered Professional Coach are met by university sport practitioners with an ambivalence that complicates, if not works against, the Coaching Association of Canada's efforts to professionalize sport coaching. This paper concludes by focusing on how the intraprofessional tensions within the sport coaching professional project, specifically the ambivalence around the Chartered Professional Coach, add to the challenges faced by women sport coaches in Canadian university sport.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".