A grounded theory of the role of social agents in adolescent athletes' process of learning to cope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to develop a grounded theory of adolescent athletes' process of learning to cope and the role of parents and coaches within this process. Interviews were conducted with 17 athletes (8 females, 9 males, M age = 15.6 years) 10 parents (8 mothers, 2 fathers), and 7 male coaches. Interviews were analysed using grounded theory methodology (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The core category of learning to cope was an experiential process for adolescent athletes, suggesting that athletes must gain personal experience in dealing with stressors in order to learn how to cope. Athletes learned about coping by being exposed to multiple situations in their sport and by reflecting on their stressors and coping efforts. Parents and coaches helped athletes learn to cope by creating a trusting environment which facilitated the learning process, and by using specific strategies for assistance which included: questioning and reminding, sharing experiences, providing perspective, 'dosing' stress experiences, initiating informal discussions, direct instruction, and creating learning opportunities. Parents and coaches also negotiated a number of 'balancing acts' which influenced the creation of a trusting environment as well as the specific strategies they used to help athletes learn to cope. Learning about coping appeared to be characterized by an athlete's ability to flexibly use coping strategies in an independent and persistent manner.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by a Doctoral Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and a Human Performance Grant from the University of Alberta.
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 | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".