The Social Work Sport Coach: New Possibilities for a Contemporary Coaching Pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Youth sport plays a crucial role in the healthy development of youth. When designed and implemented appropriately, sport can serve as a platform to advocate for social justice and engage in social justice promotion. Although the intersectionality of youth sport coaching and social work is a relatively novel concept, critical lessons may be learned from professions that traditionally operate outside of the context of sport. To progress youth sport and youth sport coaching into the future, the current study seeks to reimage youth sport coaching by exploring alternative pedagogical approaches gleaned from sport social workers who hold multiple roles. Specifically, the current study seeks to explore the values, approaches, and skills used by sport social workers who embody a dual role within competitive youth sport. Findings A total of 10 sport social workers engaged in a semi-structured interview series in which participants were interviewed on two occasions, approximately 1 week apart. All participants had earned at least a Master of Social Work degree and, on average, had 8.8 years of social work experiences and 11.4 years of coaching experience. Findings from the reflexive thematic analysis provide novel insights into a contemporary coaching pedagogy, including a focus on biopsychosocial development, strengths-based coaching, and evidence-based clinical social work practices. Applications Ultimately, the social work profession—which is dedicated to meeting the basic needs of all people and holds the mission of enhancing individual and societal wellbeing—provides a unique perspective that can serve to foster transformative sport experiences.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".