Training and development of coaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined coaches’ perceived value and utility of participating in training and professional development. Specifically, coaches’ reaction to perceived satisfaction with a presenter, knowledge learned in the session, and the setting where the training took place. Participants were coaches who attended a 3-day Global Coaches House seminar during the course of the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. Coaches were asked to complete a 17-item reaction survey for each session they attended. The reaction survey assessed the degree of satisfaction with the presenter, session, and setting. A total of 381 surveys were completed by 175 coaches where each coach completed approximately two surveys. Results revealed that coaches were highly satisfied with the session and presenter but less satisfied with the setting. Stepwise regression analysis showed that four items accounted for 75.9% of the variance to predict coaches’ satisfaction with the presenter, including ‘ability to relate to the audience’, ‘knowledge of the subject matter’, ‘ability to keep trainees’ interest’, and ‘delivery and explanation of materials’. Similarly, four items explained 66.2% of the variance to predict coaches’ satisfaction with the session including ‘the session prepared trainees to perform new coaching tasks’, ‘satisfaction with communication of the session objectives’, ‘the relevance of the session to their job’ and ‘the session emphasized the most important information’. Finally, three items accounted for 49.2% of the variance to explain coaches’ satisfaction with the setting, including ‘satisfaction with the audio and visual aids’, ‘satisfaction with supplies and equipment’, and ‘classrooms and furniture’.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".