Examining Female Coach Burnout Experiences and Coping Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In high-level sport, coaches are often paid professionals who spend numerous hours pursuing program success. Through their varied roles, these coaches face many job demands (e.g., fundraising, abnormal working hours, and travel) that can lead to burnout. It has been shown that female coaches have different perceived stressors than their male counterparts, which leads to higher rates of burnout. The purpose of this study was to explore the burnout experiences of female basketball coaches in Canada. Guided by a pragmatic approach, we interviewed 14 female basketball coaches to understand their experiences with burnout. Four main themes resulted: Experiences (participants’ knowledge of burnout based on their individual experiences or through second-hand knowledge), Management (steps participants took to reduce, prevent, or treat their burnout), Education (information coaches had previously received about burnout), and Recommendations (advice they had for organizations to help reduce, prevent, or treat burnout for other coaches). Based on the findings, we offer recommendations to coaches and organizations on how to support individuals who might experience burnout.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".