‘That’s how I am dealing with it – that<i>is</i>dealing with it’: exploring men athletes’ self-compassion through the lens of masculinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the growing body of literature in the field of athletes’ self-compassion over the past decade, studies with a focus specifically on men athletes are limited. In addition, although previous research suggests that differential representations of masculinities may impact men’s self-compassion uniquely, the link between men athletes’ self-compassion and masculinities is understudied. With masculinity-based negative evaluations being the source of many difficult experiences for men athletes, perhaps self-compassion can mitigate the impact of men’s challenges in sport. Thus, our research purpose was to explore men athletes’ lived experiences of self-compassion through the lens of masculinity. We recruited 16 men athletes (Mage = 21.4 years; SD = 3.7) to participate in two semi-structured interviews with a reflexive photography task between interviews. The results of our study are framed within two overlying categories (i.e., masculinity, self-compassion), with multiple themes in each category. Our findings suggest that the men athletes in our study generally represent a version of masculinity that is accepting of non-traditional representations of masculinity (e.g. homosexuality), and they were open and willing to accept and embrace self-compassion, particularly if it helps them improve their sport performance. We conclude that self-compassion can be a useful resource for men athletes, and future research should focus on developing and evaluating the effectiveness of a self-compassion intervention, with considerations given to the potential role of masculinity in men’s difficult sport experiences, tailored specifically for men athletes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".