Exploring the Work and Professionalization of University Sport Coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The terms work, professional and occupation (to name a few) are often used when describing the practice of university sport coaches. However, there is a lack of research investigating the nature of university sport coaching as work or as a profession and even less research on the nature of sport coaching as work or as a profession for women. As such, this study critically examined sport coaching as work within the university sport context, whether and if university sport coaches are considered professionals, as well as the conditions, which frame the daily practices of sport coaches in relation to and within their university (academic and athletic) settings and finally, the gendered and/or gendering nature of university sport coaching. Embedded in feminist political economy, this study employed institutional ethnography as its methodology, and data was collected through semi-structured interviews, observations, and document analysis. The results showed that university sport coaching work is qualified, boundaryless, and precarious in nature; And, that while the coaching professional project is in motion, coaching has not been regulated by the Canadian government, and/or accepted by the Canadian public as a profession. Additionally, as a result of being qualified, boundaryless, and precarious and unregulated, coaching as work is even more precarious and/or uncertain for women working in university athletics departments as coaches. Collectively, these insights, in addition to the narrowly defined margin of success for sport coaches (i.e., winning) have created unstable conditions for coaches working in university sport.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".