A creative non-fiction story of an athlete’s journey through the life skills application process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, the majority of empirical investigations into the life skills transfer process have presented what have often been singular instances of application, thus positioning life skills transfer more as an outcome rather than an ongoing process of learning/refinement. Conceptualising transfer as an outcome overlooks the cognitive and emotional factors that influence athletes in their process of attempting to apply in life the skills they learned in sport. The purpose of the present study was to use the Kendellen and Camiré (2019) substantive grounded theory of life skills application to document one athlete’s journey through the life skills application process. A single instrumental case study was employed to investigate the athlete’s experiences of applying the life skill of leadership at work as he progressed through the four steps described in the grounded theory. Three individual semi-structured interviews were conducted over a 10-month period, supplemented by three months of solicited journaling. In drawing on the analytical practice of creative non-fiction, the athlete’s story of applying the life skill of leadership at work is presented. The present study contributes to the literature by moving beyond documenting instances of life skills transfer and instead demonstrating how the athlete’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviours evolved to influence his experiences of applying at work the leadership skills he believed he learned in sport. The findings are discussed in relation to the substantive grounded theory of life skills application as well as the life skills transfer literature.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".