Stories of “Coaching Better” Competitive Sport Through Critical Reflection and Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Competitive sport in Canada is experiencing a reckoning, with calls for a national inquiry as well as an imploding of conventional norms challenging the primacy of winning above athletes’ personal well-being and psychosocial development. Through the present study, coaches’ challenges and successes in creating safer and more inclusive sport spaces were explored. Nine competitive sport coaches participated in an individual pre-season interview, completed an in-season reflective portfolio, and took part in an individual post-season interview. From a story analyst approach, the central narrative theme of ‘it’s my responsibility to enact change’ was identified within the coaches’ stories. To create relatable and resonating findings, a storyteller approach was used to communicate the multiple meanings of the central theme as accessible creative nonfiction stories. Four composite vignettes were developed to detail the coaches’ developing critical praxes: (a) when is it okay to intervene?; (b) why am I still hurdling over barriers?; (c) burning out… it’s consuming me; and (d) breaking through… it’s necessary work. The findings build on previous research, demonstrating how a coach’s critical praxis constantly shifts on a continuum of awareness and advocacy. Moreover, the findings provide alternative narratives on the challenges and successes coaches may face as they restructure their coaching practice to become safer and more inclusive. Researchers should make further use of creative nonfiction stories as they can help coaches assess how they can become transformative leaders who critically reflect on social issues in sport and act in ways that support advocacy and empowerment.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".