“I Just Roll Over, Pick Myself Up, and Carry On!” Exploring the Fall-Risk Experience of Canadian Masters Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The risk of falling increases in adults aged 65 years and older. A common barrier to take up physical activity in sedentary older adults is the fear of falls and injury. Experiences of master athletes can provide insights into management of the risk of falling. The purpose of this phenomenological study was to explore the fall-risk experience of masters athletes actively competing in sport. METHODS: Masters athletes aged 55 years and older (N = 22) described their experiences in semistructured interviews. Data were analyzed through an interpretive-constructivist paradigm using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Five dominant themes emerged: acceptance, learning, awareness, resilience, and self-fulfillment. Participants of this study reported an acceptance of the risk they take in sport for falls and injuries in their pursuits for self-fulfillment. DISCUSSION: Findings indicate that master athletes accept the risk for falls and injuries in sport, find ways to adapt, and continue to compete because it is self-fulfilling. Sharing their experiences might inspire other older adults to get active as a rewarding means of remaining independent.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".