MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7161959587 · doi:10.82308/5043

Exploring the learning and mentoring experiences of paralympic coaches

2015· dissertation· en· W7161959587 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Fairhurst

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingCertificationPerceptionAthletesProfessional developmentInformal learningFormal learningExperiential learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Participation in Paralympic sport has grown exponentially since the inaugural games in 1960. Despite this rapid increase in participation, the same growth and development of research has not occurred, especially relating to coaches in disability sport (Robbins & Houston, 2010). Moreover, advancing disability sport requires empirical research specific to the selection and training of coaches, the effectiveness of training programs, and coaches' backgrounds (DePauw & Gavron, 2005; Reid & Prupas, 1998). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore Paralympic coaches' perceptions of their learning and educational experiences, and specifically to examine formal and informal learning and mentoring opportunities. Semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with six male Paralympic head coaches who were identified by a panel of experts as being among the best in eastern Canada. Results revealed that Paralympic coaches followed unconventional careers paths which included several challenges to acquiring disability specific coaching knowledge and skills. These barriers led the participants to utilize an array of informal learning situations in order to overcome these barriers. Most notably, the participants actively sought out mentoring relationships to acquire disability sport coaching knowledge when they first entered the field. When they became expert coaches themselves, they created formalized mentoring opportunities for aspiring coaches. The results of the current study address the educational needs of Paralympic coaches and can inform educational governing bodies (i.e., National Coach Certification Program in Canada, Canadian Paralympic Committee) on how best to educate aspiring Paralympic coaches. One example is developing a formalized mentoring program as a structured source of information specific to Paralympic sport. It is hoped that the results of this research will continue to increase the growth of Paralympic sport and worldwide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.269
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpinal Cord Injury Research→French-language works237,207→