MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Older Athletes’ Perceived Benefits of Competition

2011· article· en· W3381768 on OpenAlex
Rylee A. Dionigi, Joseph Baker, Sean Horton

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Sport and Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesCompetition (biology)PsychologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationApplied psychologyPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intense sport competition is typically associated with young people. Also, much of the literature on exercise for older adults focuses on benefits derived from regular physical activity, such as walking, dancing and fitness classes, and suggests that one should avoid extremely strenuous exercise. The rising phenomenon of older people competing in sport presents a challenge to these assumptions. In 2009, approximately 28,000 athletes from 95 countries gathered in Sydney, Australia to compete across 28 different sports at the World Masters Games. We interviewed 44 competitors (23 females, 21 males; aged 56-90 years; M=72) about what they gained from competing in sport that extended beyond non-competitive physical activity outcomes. Five key themes emerged from the data. The first theme, “I like a challenge”, depicts Masters sport as an ideal context to test one’s abilities. In particular, lifelong athletes (or those who had returned to sport after a long break) enjoyed the satisfaction of knowing they “can still do it”! On the other hand, Masters competitions provide space for older people to begin sport in later life, as the second theme highlights, “I discovered that at this age group I could win things”! Theme three, “I’m more motivated to work harder”, describes how regular competitions provided goals for participants which structured their training. Also, the act of competing brought out their best performances. The fourth theme, “You know where you stand”, shows how participants liked that competition enabled them to compare themselves with others of their own age cohort. The final theme, “Travel” and “companionship”, explains how the organized, competitive structure of Masters sport and its club system allowed for regular travel, the establishment of ongoing friendships and weekly social interaction. Our data suggest that sport provides unique benefits to participants above and beyond those gained from general physical activity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it