MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411006261 · doi:10.1080/00336297.2025.2513357

An Integrated Model of Life Skills Coaching Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (LSC-TPB Model)

2025· article· en· W4411006261 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

VenueQuest · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Education
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorCoachingPsychologyApplied psychologyPlanned changeAthletesSocial psychologyComputer sciencePhysical therapyArtificial intelligenceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies emphasize the importance of life skills coaching, but the specific mechanisms involved are not sufficiently explained. To advance life skills literature and provide insights for practitioners, it is necessary to explain the beliefs and intentions that underpin how coaches teach life skills. As part of efforts to develop a framework that reflects these factors, this study proposes an integrated model combining the theory of planned behavior (TPB) with existing life skills coaching (LSC) theories. The LSC-TPB model explains specific life skills coaching processes by focusing on three core beliefs (i.e. attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavior control), intentions, and implementation of coaches. This model provides explanations for why coaches may fail to teach life skills despite their intentions. Finally, practical implications for how this model can be applied in sport settings, as well as potential areas for future research, are presented.

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · 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