Learning a Trauma-Sensitive Sport Model: Training Workshop Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore leaders’ development of trauma-sensitive approaches in their sport coaching practices through exploring the learning experiences of leaders of a national community youth-serving organisation who participated in an initial training workshop. The value-creation framework was used to explore learning experiences based on the interactions and values leaders discussed. Two training workshops were held with two different cohorts of leaders. The researcher observed these workshops, and the leaders were interviewed about their preferences for training and development, and their experiences of learning in the workshops. The interview data were analysed collectively using a deductive–inductive thematic analysis. Data were also collected on leaders’ satisfaction with training, knowledge perceptions, content knowledge, and attitudes toward trauma-sensitive practice. These data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests. Collectively, the results showed that the leaders (a) improved their relevant knowledge from pre- to postparticipation; (b) valued having a variety of learning opportunities; (c) wanted to learn how to support their youth’s needs better within and beyond sport; and (d) intended to promote more responsive, trauma-sensitive programme practices. Implications were discussed for the improvement of training opportunities to meet learners’ needs.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".