Recreational athletes' experiences of adversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kelsey S. Wright, Tara-Leigh F. McHugh, Amber D. Mosewich Faculty of Kinesiology, Sport, and Recreation; University of Alberta Sport involvement can be a both a stressor and a protective factor for elite athletes' well-being (Arnold & Fletcher, 2012; Sarkar & Fletcher, 2014; Secades et al., 2016), but the relationship between adversity and sport participation is unknown. As a means of understanding the potential coping strategies associated with sport participation, this study addressed how experience adversity. Ten (Mage = 24.2 years, SD = 2.71) participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using an interpretive phenomenological analysis (Smith, 2004; Reid, Flowers, & Larkin, 2005). Participants were asked to describe their definitions of recreational athletes as a basis for interpreting their experiences. Through interpreting the findings, it appears that use their sport participation as a means of coping with adverse life events. Through social support, distraction, reaffirmation of their athletic identity, and goal setting, the of this study found coping strategies within sport. Notably, participants described that their coping efforts were more successful when their personal goals matched the goals of others around them in sport. Social support within and outside of sport provided with opportunities to resolve their emotions, while at other times sport distracted from negative emotions. Greater investment in their athletic identities provided more sport coping opportunities, bettering athletes' responses to adversity. Further exploring successful coping strategies within sport could help to inform future sport policy involving athletes.Acknowledgments: Thank you to Dr. Amber Mosewich and Dr. Tara-Leigh McHugh for their guidance with this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".