Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite having a relatively small population (approximately 20 million), Australia is regarded as a leading sports nation finishing in the top six nations in the past three Olympics. Australia has established a proud tradition of international sporting success over the past sixty years, especially at the Olympic level. However, after the ‘golden period’ in the fifty’s and sixties, Australia began to fall behind the major sporting superpowers. Specifically, the perceived failure of the 1976 Olympic team in Montreal (no gold medals) was the catalyst for significant Federal Government intervention, leading to considerable changes in the Australian sporting landscape. Since then, Australia has embraced a strategic approach to the development of its national talent in many sports, beginning with the establishment of the Australian Institute of Sport in 1981. The National Sporting Organisations coordinate with the various Institutes and Academies of Sport to develop a structured and systematic approach aimed at supporting Australia’s athletic and coaching elite. There has been a recent shift in Australian coach education from a rigid accreditation structure (level 1, 2 and 3) across all sports, to a flexible accreditation framework in which each sport negotiates the details of the accreditation pathway. Another recent development has been the availability of postgraduate tertiary opportunities for coaches in Australia. The current Postgraduate Programs in Sports Coaching are a joint venture between the Australian Sports Commission, the Australian Institute of Sport, and the School of Human Movement Studies at The University of Queensland. Expert academics, researchers and elite coaches have combined to develop relevant courses that integrate theory, research and coaching practice. The online delivery of the Sports Coaching Program provides a flexible study opportunity to cater for the busy lives of practicing coaches.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
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".