University student-athletes' experiences of facilitators and barriers to contribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University student-athletes' contributions in the form of volunteering, community involvement, and civic engagement have been the subject of recent research; however, findings have frequently contrasted each other. The prevalence of contrasting findings indicates a need for research examining the facilitators and barriers to university student-athlete contributions. To date, no studies have specifically examined the facilitators and barriers to contribution in this population. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore the facilitators and barriers to university student-athletes' contributions. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight university student-athletes (two males, six females) from two Canadian universities between 18 and 21 years of age (M = 19.25). Initial analysis of interview transcripts led to the identification of two qualitatively distinct profiles regarding how facilitators and barriers to contributions were experienced. Further investigation of these differences resulted in the identification of two groups of participants who differed in their lived experiences of contributions marked primarily by age and contribution experiences. The two profiles were subsequently labelled as first-year student-athletes and sustained contributors. Although both profiles identified teammates, coaches, and athletics department staff as facilitators to their contribution, they differed in their descriptions of how contributions were facilitated. First-year student-athletes were more reliant than sustained contributors on having facilitators create contribution opportunities or directly invite them to contribute. The profiles also differed in regards to how time constraints were overcome. First-year student-athletes utilized less complex individual time-management strategies, while sustained contributors collaboratively made use of more advanced time-management strategies to optimize their time. Acknowledgments: Funded by a SSHRC Joseph-Armand Bombardier Canada Graduate Scholarship (Masters)
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 | 0.000 | 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".