Understanding Social Support Throughout the Injury Process among Interuniversity Swimmers
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
The purpose of this study was to gain comprehensive understanding of athletes’ social support experiences during the injury process, with a focus on social support networks, exchanges, and appraisals (Bianco & Eklund, 2001). Twelve university swimmers who recently experienced swimming-related injuries engaged in a semistructured interview. Findings indicate athletes had mixed experiences with their networks of social support (i.e., coaches, medical practitioners, parents, and teammates), with themes regarding exchanges and appraisals emerging in three categories: (a) Don’t bring your negative energy to practice, (b) Show me you care, and (c) Provide me with some clear and appropriate direction! Participants reported coaches and teammates being in denial of their injuries, shunning them from the team, or pushing them to train through their injuries, resulting in athletes feeling uncared for, unsupported, and lacking direction. Athletes’ sense of support stemmed from feeling cared for. Findings underscore the importance of comprehensively examining the multiple constructs of social support, while serving as a springboard for further investigations and important practical implications.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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