Wearing a “Self-Compassion Suit” May Offer a Performance Edge: A Qualitative Study of Serial-Winning High-Performance Coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-performance coaches face complex challenges within their profession, which affect both their performance and their well-being. Through a qualitative study design, we aimed to understand how serial-winning high-performance coaches perceive self-compassion practice. Nine Scandinavian participants from various sports (female = 1, male = 8) explored self-compassion through psychoeducation and 1 week of practice followed by interviews. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The three themes are represented via a creative nonfiction story: “We have no fear of self-compassion”; “Realizing why I should be a more compassionate friend to myself, it gives me a performance edge”; and “You have to take the armor off, and that is sometimes hard.” This study offers novel insights from serial-winning high-performance coaches—a typically hard-to-reach sample. The findings show how self-compassion was perceived as beneficial based on participants’ prolonged experience navigating challenges, and how self-compassion may contribute to psychologically safe high-performance environments.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".