Bibliographic record
Abstract
Researchers have explored the nature of coaching from many different perspectives, including process (Cassidy, Jones, Potrac, 2004; Lyle, 1999); leadership (Chelladurai, 1978, 1993; Cote, North, Duffy, 2007; Vallee Bloom, 2005); and qualities and abilities of coaches (Armstrong, 2001; Tomlinson Stachan, 1996). The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate coaches' perceptions of emotional and social intelligence and its influence on the coaching process. In this study, a mixed model was employed, in which a qualitative paradigm was dominant and a quantitative paradigm was also utilized (Creswell, 1994). In the first of three data collection phases, I surveyed 60 coaches of elite adult athletes using the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i) (Bar-On, 1997) for the purpose of measuring their perceptions of their emotional and social intelligence. The group of 60 coaches was divided into four groups, which were determined by gender and by whether the coach coached a team or an individual sport. In the second phase; I interviewed nine of the coaches who had participated in phase one of the study to understand more thoroughly their perceptions of their emotional and social intelligence and to collect their experiences of its influence on the coaching process. In phase three, three athletes, identified by each of the nine interviewed coaches, completed the Emotional Quotient-360°. The purpose of phase three was to compare the athletes' perceptions of their coaches' emotional and social intelligence against the coaches' self-perceptions obtained in phase one. The findings of this study suggested that the coaches were not familiar with the concept of emotional and social intelligence and their leadership style was to maintain unilateral control or power over the athletes (Tomlinson Strachan, 1996). Furthermore, the various coaching groups perceived and reported different levels of satisfaction and types of relating styles. EQ-i scores, levels of happiness and interpersonal dynamics reflect these differences. Interestingly, coaches' self-perceptions differed significantly from the athletes' perceptions of their coaches in three areas- independence, flexibility, and stress tolerance. The implications of these findings for coach/athlete relationships and for furthering coaching education and development are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".