MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407338822 · doi:10.1080/21640629.2025.2462900

The experiences of women coaches in community sport

2025· article· en· W4407338822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSports Coaching Review · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPhysical Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersState Government of Victoria
KeywordsAthletesCoachingPsychologyGender studiesApplied psychologyPhysical therapySociologyMedicinePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the experiences of community-level women coaches in three sports. Data collection included a content analysis of the policies and practices of each sport organisation in relation to the governance of sport coaching and their recruitment and support strategies for women coaches, semi-structured interviews with managers and staff who support their coaching workforce, and community-level women coaches. Data were analysed using an iterative reflexive thematic analysis process. We found a lack of representation of women in the governance of sport coaching that women coaches are on the periphery of the coaching ranks within sport clubs and face unique time pressures to pursue coaching roles. This study highlights how women coaches’ experiences can be impacted by the behaviour of others. We conclude that there is a need for more purposeful and intentional interventions from state sport associations and community sport clubs to improve the experiences of women coaches.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it