Exploring theorized associations in two different competitive swimming contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are hypothesized associations between high training volume in youth sport and negative psychological and behavioural outcomes such as decreased enjoyment, burnout, and attrition. Autonomy support, however, is associated with positive motivational and behavioural outcomes. The purpose of this study was to concurrently explore the relationships of training volume and perceived coach autonomy support with enjoyment, commitment, burnout, and intentions to continue swimming in two very different competitive swimming contexts: summer club, with a brief season and time for sampling other sports, and winter club, requiring substantial near year-round investments of time and effort in swimming. Survey data were collected from 265 Canadian swimmers (Mage = 13.78), 40% from summer clubs, and 60% from winter clubs. Their parents provided training volume data. Correlations and path analyses revealed differences in the relationships between certain variables for summer versus winter swimmers. For example, autonomy support was not significantly related to obligatory commitment in the summer sample, but for winter swimmers, there was a medium negative association. Training volume was positively associated with functional commitment and intentions to continue swimming in winter swimmers, but not in summer swimmers. Differences between the two groups will be discussed in relation to their unique competitive contexts. Our findings suggest that some theories and models of motivation, sport commitment, and youth sport participation may not be generalizable across all youth sport contexts. Researchers should take care to fully describe the sport context under study when discussing any potential theoretical implications stemming from their findings.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".