"I think that unless you're in it, you don't understand": A case study of an elite sport school academy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Elite student-athletes in Canada report issues balancing their dual careers. Eighty percent of student-athletes in British Columbia indicated having difficulties balancing school and sport commitments (Way et al., 2010). Canadian university student-athletes' lives were found to revolve around three competing pillars: social, academic, and athletic (Miller & Kerr, 2002). Student-athletes often had to make compromises among these pillars leading to failings in academics, social isolation, or diminished athletic pursuits (Miller & Kerr, 2002). This research examined the experience of elite student-athletes participating in an elite sport school academy in Ontario, specifically focusing on the impact of the program on athletic, academic, and psychosocial development. Method: A qualitative case study design employed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with female student-athletes participating in the academy's basketball stream (n=9; mean age=16). Interpretive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: Results indicate that the elite sport school academy had a significant impact on the lives of the student-athletes; participants discussed many factors that impact their dual careers. Specifically, four themes include: perceptions of living up to the standards of an ideal athlete, the unique requirements of an elite sports academy (e.g. structure, holistic training), reconciliation of competing pillars, and what constitutes successful social support. Conclusion: Participation in the elite sport school academy played a critical role in the well-being of student-athletes as well as their performance in both athletics and academics. These results have implications for Canadian student-athlete development and more specifically in terms of the future of this academy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".