A scoping review of coach development opportunities in parasport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A scoping review was conducted to map: (a) empirical literature on coach development opportunities in parasport, and (b) empirical literature on coaches’ experiences (barriers and facilitators) of accessing coach development opportunities in parasport. Eight sport sciences databases were searched generating an initial 1406 records; a three-phase process of screening narrowed the selection to 32 records. Data were charted on study aims, theory, context, program information, methodology, and results. Descriptive frequencies were calculated across these categories, and an inductive qualitative approach was taken to categorize the results. The descriptive results showed that relevant literature spanned years 1990 – 2021, 50% of records were published in the last decade, 68% were from Canada and USA, 47% were in elite or Paralympic contexts, 25% used human learning theories to frame their studies, 81% used qualitative approaches, and 75% were interview studies. The inductive results indicated that: (a) coaches often began their careers with limited education in parasport coaching; (b) coaches’ formal education of coaching practices are most predominantly drawn from able-bodied education opportunities; (c) coaches most often learned through social opportunities, such as mentoring from experts, and through interactions with athletes, peer coaches, family; (c) coaches preferred information about strategies for working with different impairments, and preferred learning through hands-on, practical opportunities. Findings reveal the value of: (a) offering tailored, parasport-specific learning opportunities to coaches already coaching in parasport; (b) providing broader parasport education to coaches entering the context, and (c) and incorporating parasport coach development opportunities within undergraduate curriculums in the sport sciences.
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 | 0.025 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".