Investigating Post-sport Adjustment Experiences of Former Canadian Major Junior Hockey Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project explored the post-sport adjustment experiences of former Canadian major junior hockey (CHL) players in the years following their athletic retirement. This study was conducted using a qualitative, within-subjects, longitudinal research design to understand the manner by which elite CHL athletes make sense of their athletic retirement experiences across time. Four former CHL players participated in two semi-structured interviews; one occurred shortly after their athletic retirement and the next was conducted approximately 24 months later. Interviews were then analyzed in accordance with the interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) method. Themes identified in each participant’s account were compared and contrasted across all participants to generate an in-depth portrayal that gave voice to participants’ athletic retirement and subsequent post-sport adjustment transitions. Results revealed that participants continued to have unresolved feelings about their athletic retirement and experienced conflicting emotions of both pride and embarrassment in relation to their athletic identity. Participants post-sport adjustment experiences focused on attempts to renegotiate self-worth and prove their worth off the ice. As the post-sport adjustment period progressed, participants described moving from avoidance-based coping strategies to increasing action-oriented coping strategies which facilitated feelings of control and autonomy. Recommendations for helping professionals are provided and highlight the need for person-centred and multi-level interventions to support athletic retirement transitions. Additional longitudinal research is required to further develop understanding of the ongoing effects of athletic retirement and elite athletes’ post-sport adjustment experiences across time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".