Sustainable High-Performance Coaching: Recommendations from an International Expert Round-Table Summit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-performance (HP) coaching has been described as a potentially unsustainable profession. Limited research has explored the potential benefits of well-being and stress management interventions aimed at the individual coach level, but there is a lack of guidance within the literature on how to support and enhance the sustainability of the HP coaching profession. To address this, we gathered a panel of 14 international experts (i.e., the authors, including Olympic and Paralympic coaches, performance directors, program directors, and scholars with extensive research and practice experience) for a two-day round-table summit to discuss, reflect on, and co-create recommendations on how to develop programs to support high-performance coaches (HPCs) to be more sustainable and successful in terms of performance, well-being, and engagement. Data from the summit included audio recordings and field notes collected from whole- and small-group conversations and presentations, and were analyzed and organized into themes representing recommendations for future program content (understanding the coaching context; self-awareness, self-care, and self-compassion; establishing values and committed actions) and program delivery (logistics and delivery; creative and flexible resources; organizational responsibility; hoping to perform versus prepared to perform). Sport psychology practitioners, program directors, coach educators and developers, and coaches can benefit from considering these recommendations when creating programs aimed at well-being and sustainability in HP coaching.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".