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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".