Gender Differences in Adolescent Athletes’ Coping with Interpersonal Stressors in Sport: More Similarities than Differences?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined gender differences in the types of coping strategies adolescent athletes use to manage sport-related interpersonal stress. To explain gender coping differences, the dispositional and situational gender coping hypotheses were explored (Tamres, Janicki, & Helgenson, 2002 Smith, A. L. 2003. Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: a road less traveled in youth sport and exercise psychology research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4: 25–39. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Adolescent athletes from Western Canada (N = 524) completed measures of stress appraisal and coping-strategy use in response to a self-selected interpersonal stress source in sport. Results revealed gender differences, but only in select coping strategies. Gendered-coping was not robust across interpersonal sources of stress, providing partial support for the situational gender coping hypothesis. The results are discussed in relation to stress processes that mediate gendered coping as well as the implications for practitioner assistance in youth athletes’ stress-management.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".