Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the phenomenon on the Olympic medallists` desocialization and resocialization process. By using purposeful sampling, which was used in nonprobability sampling for qualitative studies, 2 males and 3 females were selected from six sporting events during the time period covering the 21st Olympic Games in Montreal through the 24th Olympic Games in Seoul. In this study, reasons for retirement and desocialization included a loss of goals, marriage, pressures of competition, converting to second careers, and giving way for a younger generation of athletes. Most athletes did not experience psychological complications after retirement from sports because they had been satisfied with their athletic careers. Social reactions were different according o the importance of each sporting activity but social responses did not vary by an individual athlete`s ability. This study indicated that athletes had plans for the future and post-retirement during the process of resocialization but many of them had not made preparations. However, they did not have difficulty selecting second careers after retirement. Meanwhile, athletes tried to select different occupations according to individual characteristics or the degree of adaptability. During the process of adapting and facing complications, selection of second careers went smoothly but athletes showed some confusion during the adaptation process. This study also showed that the factors influencing resocialization were athletes experiences and public exposure. These two factors provided both positive and negative aspects to all participants.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".