Coping with the cut: Athletes' and parents' experiences with deselection in competitive youth sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An understanding of how athletes and parents cope with being cut from youth sport may help to reduce some of the negative consequences associated with deselection. The overall purpose of the study was to examine competitive female adolescent athletes' and their parents' experiences of deselection from provincial sport teams. Three research questions were addressed: (1) How do athletes cope with being deselected? (2) What role do parents play in helping their daughters cope with being deselected? (3) How do parents themselves cope with the deselection process? Participants were 14 female adolescent athletes (M age=14.6 years, SD=1.3) who were deselected from provincial soccer, basketball, volleyball or hockey teams and 14 of their parents (9 mothers. 5 fathers; M age=45.0 years, SD=5.8). Data were collected through semi-structured interviews with these athlete-parent dyads and analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis (Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, 2009). Results revealed that athletes used a range of coping strategies to deal with the challenges of deselection. They lowered their expectations prior to the try-out, used positive self-talk, and talked to their parents. Some athletes practiced harder to 'prove the coaches wrong.' Parents helped athletes cope by 'consoling first, talking later.' They listened to their daughters, put things in perspective, and tried to rationalize decisions. Parents themselves coped by talking to other parents, their spouses, and seeking validation from others. These findings identify specific coping strategies athletes and parents use individually, and how athletes and parents work together to cope with deselection. Acknowledgments: SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship, Sport Canada
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".