Design Thinking: Innovative Knowledge Co-Creation in Coaching for Para Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing participation in Para sport has created a demand for more qualified coaches, yet their development mainly depends on informal and experiential methods due to limited formal opportunities. Effective collaboration between sports organizations and governmental bodies is crucial to developing comprehensive coach development opportunities tailored to the specific needs of Para sports. Design Thinking offers a viable solution to bridge existing gaps by fostering innovative, human-centered approaches that lead to the development of solutions tailored to the evolving demands of Para sport coaching. The purpose of this study was to introduce and propose the utilization of Design Thinking to enhance coach development opportunities in Para sport, illustrated through a comprehensive analysis of a 2-day design challenge event based on the Hasso-Plattner Institute Model. The event brought together a varied group of stakeholders, including managers, coaches, coach developers, and athletes. Design Thinking, with its focus on empathy, iterative problem-solving, and collaboration, was instrumental in helping participants move beyond their individual biases. The study provided actionable strategies for implementing Design Thinking in the context of Para sports, contributing to improving the overall Para sport experience.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".