Exploring men athletes' self-compassion and representations of masculinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent trends in self-compassion research suggest that the construct is a useful resource for athletes, particularly when they encounter difficult experiences in sport (Mosewich et al., 2011; Ferguson et al., 2015). However, the majority of athlete-centered self-compassion research has focused on women athletes, so less is known about men athletes' experiences of self-compassion. While women athletes' difficult experiences in sport are often rooted in appearance-based negative evaluations (Reis et al., 2015), men athletes' sport-specific difficult experiences are typically related to masculinity (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Thus, men athletes' self-compassion might be inherently linked to their varying experiences of masculinity. To explore the potential of self-compassion for men athletes, we conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with men athletes (16-30 years old), across two phases (16 at Phase I; 14 at Phase II). Phase I interviews were focused on masculinity, sport, and an introduction to self-compassion. At completion of Phase I interviews, participants were given approximately four weeks to complete a reflexive photography task, where they were asked to take five photographs representing their experiences of masculinity and self-compassion in sport. When they returned for Phase II interviews, their photographs were initially discussed in depth. The Phase II interviews then concluded with discussion on the potential intersection of masculinity and self-compassion in sport. This study will feature a narrative analysis, which has not currently been completed. However, preliminary analysis suggests that self-compassion resonated with the majority of men athletes interviewed, though language surrounding self-compassion and the role of masculinity are important considerations.Acknowledgments: This research was supported by 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".