Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach This issue marks the launch by the Canadian Journal for Women in Coaching of its first peer review article — Justifications for Unethical Behaviour in Sport: The Role of the Coach by A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dodge and Brenda Robertson. Following this inaugural issue, a peer-reviewed research edition of the Journal will be published once a year with manuscripts accepted on an ongoing basis and published in the language in which they are written. The Journal welcomes submissions for authors who are conducting research on coaching and women. Submissions may consist of applied research, position papers, reviews, or critical essays. Research methodologies may be quantitative or qualitative and may use data gathered through historical analysis, surveys, fieldwork, action research, participant observation, content analysis, simulations or experiments. Studies most appropriate for the Journal are those focusing on issues critical to the advancement of women in coaching and investigations of the challenges unique to their needs. — Sheila Robertson Beckie Scott is Canada's first cross country skier to stand on the Olympic podium, her bronze medal now upgraded to gold after drug cheats are penalized. In search for a competitive edge, some athletes engage in unethical behaviour. This research addresses the justifications varsity athletes offer for engaging in unethical behaviour. A central theme of the paper is the role of the coach, both as a source of motivation for engagement in various types of unethical behaviour and as an advocate for ethical practises. Particular emphasis is placed upon understanding the experience of female athletes. Some occurred under certain circumstances. Clear gender differences were indicated in all aspects of the study, with females reporting lower levels of agreement with all justifications for unethical behaviour than males.
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 | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".