Development of expertise in Canadian wheelchair basketball players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athlete development research over the past two decades has largely focused on the development of expertise in able-bodied athletes/sports despite considerable growth in parasport during the same period. Although similarities between performance contexts exist, the developmental trajectories may be considerably different between able-bodied and disabled athletes (e.g., differences in starting age or onset of 'deliberate practice'). This study examined 74 Canadian male (n = 48; M = 22.26 years) and female (n =26; M = 24.20 years) wheelchair basketball players who were enrolled in The Wheelchair Basketball Canada National Academy. A modified version of the Developmental History of Athletes Questionnaire (DHAQ; Hopwood, 2003) was used to ascertain demographic and career information, developmental milestones, practice history, and participation in other organized sports. Descriptive analyses revealed varied training histories and sporting backgrounds in our sample. For example, males first participated in wheelchair basketball (in any format) at 13.58 years (SD = 4.22); 13.22 years (SD = 4.03) at the junior level, 15.06 years (SD = 4.64) at the senior level, and 12.36 years (SD = 3.71) for those who competed in both. In contrast, females began participation at an older age (M = 15.21 years), but at a higher variability (SD = 6.33). Further, 40 participants (54.1%) had prior involvement in other sports (M = 3.53; SD = 2.64), starting at an average age of 8.67 years for first 'other sport' participation (SD = 5.37). These results emphasize the unique developmental pathways of parasport athletes compared to their able-bodied counterparts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".