Catching the feeling of flying: Cultivating Olympic trampoline champions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Olympic podium performances represent peak accomplishments for an athlete and his/her team. As such, researchers seek understand the pathway the Olympic podium and produce athlete development models capable of helping athletes reach these achievements. The Environmental Success Factors model (ESF; Henriksen et al., 2010), an emergent athlete development framework, shifts focus away from the importance of social agents in isolation (e.g., coaches, teammates) the importance of a holistic environmental development context. The ESF model demonstrates contextual inputs (i.e., preconditions, processes) shape the sport environment's culture and athletes' subsequent performance outcomes. Using this framework, we conducted an intrinsic case study explore the athlete development program at Skyriders Training Environment (STE), a Canadian trampoline training facility sporting consistent Olympic medal performances across five previous Olympic cycles. Participants led a researcher on guided walks (a mobile method of conversational interviews), contextualizing the sport environment and discussing environmental factors (e.g., coaching, facility) that interdependently contribute their consistent success, prompted by relevant cues throughout the facility. Consequently, we constructed an ESF model of STE's athlete development program. An interpretive thematic analysis identified three main themes discussing (a) creating lift (i.e., creating an environment of success), (b) providing a tailwind (i.e., establishing partnerships), and (c) soaring onto the Olympic podium (i.e., training for excellence). Unearthing the idiosyncrasies of this unique training environment provides insight into the how to of elite athlete development. These findings can be translated into other sport contexts and aid practitioners in building a holistic development program.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".