A Qualitative Exploration of Collegiate Student-Athletes’ Constructions of Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collegiate student athletes are faced with unique challenges as they are often forced to negotiate between demanding social, athletic, and academic roles. These competing priorities can put student athletes at greater risk for experiencing physical and psychological health problems than their non-athlete peers. To better understand the underlying behaviours and lifestyle factors leading to these negative outcomes, we must consider how they think about health. The purpose of this study was to examine how student athletes conceptualize health in the Canadian context, and to examine how they formulate these understandings. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 actively-competing collegiate student athletes from nine varsity sports at two academic institutions, and data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Participants constructed health holistically, with particular emphasis on physical and mental domains over social well-being. The quality of one’s physical health was equated in many ways with athletic capacity, as was the quality of mental health to a lesser degree. Participants discussed a variety of sources from which they drew health ideas, but sport experiences were commonly cited as particularly significant and formative. Findings can inform future research into health conceptualizations of other university student populations, and may inform further inquiry into how health ideas manifest into behaviour. Recommendations are provided for collegiate sport administrators including placing heavier emphasis on mental health resources, and improving support while athletes are acclimating to the demanding lifestyle of varsity sport.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".