Resistance and Empowerment through Leisure: The Meaning of Competitive Sport Participation to Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that the developed world’s population is aging. This trend has influenced increased scholarly and media interest into the benefits of leisure, sport and physical activity in later life, as well as an explosion of sporting events for mature athletes. However, the lack of qualitative research pertaining to older peoples’ experiences in competitive sport is surprising. The purpose of this article is twofold: first, to present the qualitative findings of a study that explores the meaning of competitive sport participation to a group of older adults, and second, to examine their meanings within a broader socio-cultural context. Data were collected through participant-observation and semi-structured interviews with competitors (aged 55 to 94 years) at the 8th Australian Masters Games in 20013. The findings were analyzed using strategies consistent with both constant comparative and thematic analyses. The three major themes emerging from the data suggest that competitive sport provides a leisure context for older people to resist the negative factors associated with older age at the individual, interpersonal or shared level, and gain a sense of personal empowerment, regardless of their motive for participation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".