Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to explore coaches’ perceptions of athletes’ social media use. There has not been a thorough examination of social media’s effects on coaches or the consequences of social media for meaningful relations between coach and athlete. This is an important area to investigate because previous literature suggests that social media has psychological ramifications that influence athletes’ behavior; that athletes may not be aware of, or understand, the implications that social media may have; and that athletes do not realize that social media platforms have an effect on their mental game in sport performance. Given that the coach–athlete relationship is important to sport-performance success, it is important to examine coaches’ perspectives on social media’s influence on athletes. Accordingly, a phenomenological approach was utilized to understand this experience. Semistructured interviews were conducted with six high-performance coaches of a variety of individual sports. The interviews underwent a phenomenological-analysis sequence to coconstruct meaning from the data and explore the topic. Although there is limited research on the topic of social media’s impact on coaches, research has recognized that athletes’ preoccupation with social media is a perceived challenge for coaches. The findings from the present study illustrate how coaches observe social media influencing their athletes’ behaviors, the persuasive qualities of social media, and how young athletes navigate their image on social media.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".