MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414530463 · doi:10.1080/21520704.2025.2564230

Practical Resources for the Psychology of Coaching Adults: Five Coaching Profiles

2025· article· en· W4414530463 on OpenAlexafffund
Bettina Callary, Catalina Belalcazar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Psychology in Action · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaCape Breton University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoachingSport psychologyIndustrial and organizational psychologyWork (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masters sport is for adult athletes typically aged 35 years and older who balance performance goals, social connections, and sport adherence strategies. In this article, we present adult-oriented coaching profiles that assist practitioners in better understanding, assessing, and developing psychological strategies when working with Masters athletes. Five theoretical coaching profiles are derived from a secondary analysis of empirical data, aligning coaching practices with athlete psychological outcomes such as motivation, self-confidence, and autonomy. We provide the profiles as practical resources for mental performance consultants, coach developers, and coaches in promoting quality interactions, meaningful competition, and athlete empowerment, which ultimately support the growth of effective, psychologically-informed coaching practices for adult athletes. Emphasizing adaptable strategies across coaching contexts, the profiles guide conversations on the recruitment, development, and retention of adults in sport, fostering lifelong participation through meaningful engagement and personalized psychological approaches.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.396 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport Psychology in ActionSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207