Achievement despite adversity: A qualitative investigation of undrafted national hockey league players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which athletes from various sports and competition levels overcome adversities to achieve success has been a topic of interest in sport psychology for some time. In recognizing the theoretical and practical implications derived from this line of inquiry, the current study sought to further our understanding by investigating a sample of elite athletes who were expected to share long-term objectives, and who had experienced similar adversities. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 professional athletes (Mage = 27.25; SD = 3.28) who had reached the National Hockey League (NHL; i.e., long-term objective) despite not being selected in the annual NHL Amateur Entry Draft (i.e., common adversity). As a general summary, many similarities among the participants were identified, and these were categorized into three higher-order themes involving attributes and traits (e.g., commitment, perceptions of control), long-term objectives and aspirations (e.g., playing in the NHL), and experienced adversities (e.g., injuries, organizational stressors). Interestingly, contextually relevant information emerged pertaining to the developmental stream that participants had taken (i.e., NCAA vs. Major Junior). As one example, whereas the NCAA athletes discussed the well-rounded experiences that they were afforded, the Major Junior athletes often spoke to the sacrifices they had made (e.g., education, social life). Finally, participants reflected on their experiences and provided tangible advice for others who may find themselves in similar situations. Overall, our findings are in concert with previous literature that suggests the influence of various psychosocial factors for goal achievement when faced with adversity (Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014). Findings will be discussed in greater detail.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".