Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last few years, multiple sport organisations have garnered national attention because of abusive coaching practices. Although many federations in Canada have begun to address some of these issues by adopting Safe Sport policies, radical change in coach education is needed whereby coaches can learn how to coach differently rather than focusing on what not to do. During Kristina’s, the first author’s, master’s in coaching degree at the University of Alberta, she attempted to address this issue by engaging in an inquiry-based learning (IBL)–inspired action research project. More specifically, Kristina examined skill development in a competitive rhythmic gymnastics setting to explore how to transform her coaching practices to become a more ethical coach. As a pedagogical approach, action research is unique in that it enables coaches to make connections between theory, learning in the classroom and learning in the sport setting. In this chapter, the authors reflect on how action research, as a methodological and pedagogical framework for learning, can be used in graduate coaching degrees to enhance ethical coaching practices.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".