Return to Sport after Serious Injury: A Retrospective Examination of Motivation and Psychological Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: It is argued in self-determination theory that the motivation underlying behavior has implications for health and well-being independent of the behavior itself. Objective: To examine associations between athlete motivations for returning to sport after injury and perceived psychological return-to-sport outcomes. Design: A correlational survey design was employed to obtain data in Canada, Australia, and England. Participants: Elite and subelite athletes (N = 180) with injuries requiring a minimum 2-month absence from sport participation. Main Outcome Measures: Participants completed an inventory measuring perceptions of motivation to return to sport from a serious injury and psychological return-to-sport outcomes. Results: Correlational analyses revealed that intrinsic motivations for returning to competition were associated with a positive renewed perspective on sport participation. Conversely, extrinsic motivations for returning to sport were associated with increased worry and concern. Conclusions: The motivation underlying return to sport might play an important role in return-to-sport perceptions among elite and subelite athletes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".