Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the sport experiences of six U Sports (Canadian Interuniversity Sport) male hockey players (three past CHL players and three past NCAA Division I players) through one-on-one interviews with them. The focus was the exploration of how parents, coaches, and peers had influenced current U Sports hockey players’ overall well-being in the transition through the CHL (Canadian Hockey League) or NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association). This study included male participants only, because the CHL, one of the two development leagues investigated, is for males only. Interviews revealed meaningful hockey experiences within the CHL and NCAA, in climates that affected players' motivation, expectations, and goals. The key findings of this study arose from the analysis of these interviews: (1) coaches need to have a better knowledge of the ‘psychology of performance’ for their athletes; (2) coaches should provide feedback in a more ethical way regardless of competition level; and (3) all social agents, including the athletes themselves, need to create informed and appropriate expectations to avoid realizations that can result in negative outcomes to well-being. Future research should be expanded by broadening the range of interview questions, diversifying the participant pool, and targetting policies in addition to practices.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".