The nature of family influences on sport participation in Masters athletes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the nature and source of family influences on sport participation in Masters athletes of varying skill and training commitment levels (from recreational to elite competitors). Participants were 14 married adults (nine men and five women) aged 46–61 years (M=50) from Ontario, Canada. Ten from the group had teenaged or university-aged children. Semi-structured interviews were aimed at understanding the role of family members in the athletes’ sport involvement, the athletes’ experiences of family support, absence of support, and family conflicts. Key themes in the data were: spousal (and children's) support by ‘allowing’ (i.e. not questioning or complaining about sport participation); scheduling (as a source of, and to avoid, conflict) with spouse; spouses (and parent/children) training together/training separately; and the indirect influence of children. This study shows that both positive and negative forms of family support can be negotiated to allow for ongoing sport participation in mid-later life. It brings together insights from research on the leisure constraints negotiation process, family and leisure participation, gender issues in leisure, and social support in sport and physical activity contexts.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it