MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Athletes' Experiences at the Youth Olympic Games: Perceptions, Stressors, and Discourse Paradox

2014· article· en· W2005260245 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvent Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesStressorSociocultural evolutionPerceptionTourismPsychologyApplied psychologyAdvertisingSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineClinical psychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article was to understand young athletes' experiences at a youth sport festival, specifically the Youth Olympic Games (YOG). A mixed methods approach was used, comprising of qualitative and quantitative questionnaires with athletes from Canada and Norway, and observations during the 2012 Winter YOG in Innsbruck, Austria. In general, the young athletes had a positive experience, including the village environment, sport venues, travel, security, ceremonies, and medical services. They especially enjoyed the informal, international, sociocultural experiences. Food quality, accommodations, outdoor venue conditions, travel, security, and communications formed the main stressors according to the young athletes. Findings highlight the effect of the athletes' young age, country of origin, and Games inexperience on their experiences, perceptions, and stressors, as well as paradoxes surrounding the International Olympic Committee's YOG discourse and decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · 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