Prevalence of Neuromyths Among Canadian Sports Coaches: Implications for Coach Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the prevalence and common sources of pseudoscientific beliefs among sports coaches, particularly those related to learning and brain function. Employing an observational design, we administered a one-time questionnaire to 1,568 Canadian sports coaches recruited via non-probability sampling. Coaches were surveyed regarding their familiarity with neuromyths, their beliefs about general statements concerning brain function, and the influence these ideas have on their coaching practices and the quality of coaching education. Findings indicated that coaches agreed with approximately 58.8% (±19.8) of neuromyth-related statements and accurately identified only 23.1% (±19.0) of scientifically accurate assertions about the brain. The primary exposure to these neuromyths was identified as formal coach education courses. Regression analysis revealed that knowledge of scientifically valid brain-related statements significantly predicted coaches' susceptibility to neuromyths. However, coaches' beliefs in neuromyths did not significantly predict their likelihood of applying brain-based learning ideas in their practical coaching. These results suggest a substantial challenge for sports coaches in differentiating scientifically valid information from pseudoscientific ideas regarding learning and brain functions. Given the potential negative impacts on coaching quality and athlete learning, the study underscores an urgent call for evidence-based reforms in coach education to address and mitigate the spread of pseudoscientific beliefs.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 it