The knowledge of elite level coaches of swimmers with a physical disability /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last decade has seen an increase in empirical research pertaining to coaching science and education. A great deal of research has focused on coaches of elite able-bodied athletes, while coaches of athletes with a disability have generally been overlooked. In a recent analysis of disability sport, only 5% of empirical publications pertained to coaching. Thus, the current study addressed the gap in the literature by examining the knowledge of disability sport coaches. Six elite level Canadian coaches of swimmers with a physical disability were interviewed using an unstructured, open-ended interview format. Four categories emerged from the analysis: coach background and characteristics, training, competition, and contextual factors. Results revealed who the coaches were, what they did, and similarities with elite able-bodied coaches, as well as differences that were specific to coaching swimmers with a physical disability. Specifically, it was essential for coaches to become knowledgeable of their athletes' disabilities, deal with issues of equality between able-bodied and swimmers with a physical disability, and accommodate a large array of individual needs. These findings augment knowledge in coaching psychology by including elite level coaches of athletes with physical disabilities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".