“Don’t sit back with the geraniums, get out”: The complexity of older women’s stories of sport participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Encouraging sport participation is one method governments have utilized in the attempt to facilitate a more active senior citizenry. To date, investigations of seniors’ participation in sport has focused primarily on physiological variables, with fewer investigations devoted to psychosocial outcomes or what playing sport means to the older person in the context of wider health promotion discourses. Our qualitative investigation consisted of in-depth interviews with women competing in the 2013 World Masters Games. Interviews were conducted with 16 women ranging from 70 to 86 years of age and data were analysed within a post-structural framework. Three main themes emerged from the analysis: Multi-faceted benefits, Overcoming barriers, and Social roles. There is unquestionably complexity inherent to older females’ sport participation, in that our participants held views that both challenged and perpetuated some of the most common aging and gender stereotypes. Our findings critically analyse health promotion trajectories as they relate to older women and sport.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".