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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".