Canadian University sport coaches’ experiences participating in a social learning space on topics related to and impacting coach mental health.
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
Although high-performance coaching can be rewarding, it can also cause considerable performance, organizational, and personal stress, which over time, can diminish coaches' mental health. There is a growing recognition that collective and community-based interventions that extend beyond the individual level are needed to support mental health, such as a social learning space. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand university coaches' experiences participating in a season-long social learning space on topics related to and impacting coach mental health. Specifically, 10 Canadian University coaches engaged in six monthly sessions throughout one competitive season on topics related to mental health. Data collection consisted of pre- and postseason individual, semistructured interviews. Data were analyzed abductively using a reflexive thematic analysis. Results revealed that coaches reported positive experiences from participating in the social learning space, including the sense of community it created and the quality of the knowledge provided by the invited speakers. The environment encouraged sharing and provided insights into mental health, leadership, and the coach-athlete relationship. Coaches also acquired new resources, improved personal well-being, and enhanced coaching effectiveness. Overall, this initiative empowered coaches to become advocates for mental health-both for themselves and for their athletes and networks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it