Acceptable or Not: An In-depth Analysis of Adolescent Competitive Athletes’ Perceptions on Abusive Coaching Behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study aimed to conduct an in-depth analysis of adolescent competitive athletes' perceptions on abusive coaching behaviors. Our aims were thus to (a) identify the acceptable abusive coaching behaviors and (b) characterize qualitatively the criteria for the acceptance of abusive coaching behaviors. Based on the study goal, an Abusive Coaching Behavior Grid was developed and completed by 356 French-speaking athletes, among which 10 were interviewed to justify where they draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable coaching behaviors. Quantitative analysis showed that shaking, shouting at, or asking athletes to perform until exhaustion were considered acceptable. Quebec and female athletes tended to accept fewer different abusive behaviors, but there were no differences by sport characteristics. The perception on abusive coaching behaviors was influenced by expectations about the coaching role, negative effects of coaching behaviors, circumstances in which the behaviors occur, and the nature of behaviors. The present study raises the importance of questioning cognitive schemas shared by groups of athletes as well as the norms coaches convey and the behaviors they adopt.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".