Perspectives of Canadian University Coaches on Integrating Sport Psychology and Mental Performance Consultants in Varsity Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, sport psychology has become a more popular resource for athletes and coaches when looking to increase performance. It is unknown how many Canadian universities utilize sport psychology services in their athletic programs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with coaches of Canadian university varsity teams to learn about their opinions on sport psychology and mental performance consultants (MPCs). The research was approached from a pragmatic perspective. Results showed that MPCs are important to enhance performance and provide mental health resources. MPCs provide athletes with personal and leadership development, mental skills training, and mental health support. MPCs can also be a resource for coaches when it comes to professional development and staff support. Building strong, honest, and open relationships with athletes and coaches are keys for success. The inclusion of MPCs within integrated support teams complement the holistic approach provided to student-athletes in order to improve the high-performance model of Canadian universities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it