MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416746642 · doi:10.22316/poc/10.2.05

Embodiment in Coaching: Expanding Coaching’s Cognitive Horizon with a 4E Approach

2025· article· W4416746642 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of Coaching An International Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicEgo Development and Educational Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionCognitionCoachingModality (human–computer interaction)Privilege (computing)Cognitive biasPsychological interventionCognitive robotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While coaching has become a powerful modality for supporting growth and transformation, it continues to privilege explicit cognitive and behavioral methods, often at the expense of the implicit and embodied dimensions that shape perception, insight, and change. Drawing on 4E cognitive science, somatics, relational neurobiology and robotics studies, this article challenges that bias by arguing for a more holistic coaching paradigm that honors the body’s role in cognition and transformation. It presents practical frameworks and interventions grounded in both theory and lived experience and proposes that embodiment deepens coaching impact and responds to emerging technological challenges such as AI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.330 · 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