Emerging in a bubble: Exploring the transition to adulthood in sport canada carded athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging adulthood, as a relatively new theory of development, refers to the phase of life that young people go through between the ages of 18 and 29 (Arnett, 2000). It is generally defined as the age of identity explorations, instability, self-focus, feeling in-between, and sensing possibilities for the future (Arnett, 2004). With Canada's top athletes spending close to 40 hours per week training and rating sport as the most important aspect of their lives (Ekos Research Associates, 2005), the question arises whether such devotion impacts their transition to adulthood. Accordingly, the present study aimed to examine this transition in high performance athletes. As part of a larger study, semi-structured interviews of Sport Canada carded athletes and of students from a Canadian university were qualitatively analyzed to examine identity development, conceptions and perceptions of markers of adulthood, themes of emerging adulthood, and importance of vocational setting. Results indicated an overall likeness between high performance athletes and their non-athlete peers, with some notable differences. In comparison to university students, athletes indicated that their transition to adulthood was incomplete so long as they remained within what they characterized as the bubble of high performance sport. These findings largely support emerging adulthood as a valid theory of development, and maintain the view that the complete transition to adulthood and identity formation can be challenging given sport's push for commitment and conformity (Pearson & Petitpas, 1990). The discussion will focus on how transitioning to adulthood may be a unique process for Canadian high performance athletes.Acknowledgments: This study received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".