An investigation into Canadian wheelchair rugby coaches: their role in the development of athletes with a spinal cord injury.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore wheelchair rugby coaches lived experiences in the development of their athletes who had acquired a spinal cord injury (SCI). Four elite wheelchair rugby coaches in Canada were interviewed using a semi-structured open-ended interview format. Smith and Osborn's (2008) Interpretative Phenomenological Approach (IPA) was used to inductively analyze and interpret the data. Results revealed three higher-order categories: (a) Coach Attributes and Development, highlighted the evolution of the coaches and their methods of knowledge acquisition in the sport of wheelchair rugby; (b) Coaching the Sport, described the sporting environment of wheelchair rugby, including the participants' coaching roles and responsibilities; and (c) Coaching the Individual, described the participants' philosophies on developing their players as both athletes on the court and as individuals in their daily lives. Results provided evidence to support the importance of informal knowledge acquisition as central in the development of these coaches. Findings were similar to those highlighted in previous disability sport literature, stressing the importance of coaching an „athlete' as opposed to a „person with a disability.' Furthermore, coaches were thoroughly invested in the holistic growth and development of their athletes and empowered their players to maximize their potential both on the court and in their daily lives. From a practical perspective, the current findings can be used to enhance the quality and standard of formal disability sport coach education and provide knowledge on best coaching practices specific to the sport of wheelchair rugby.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".