Swimming Through Ambivalence: The Paradox of Vigilant Coping in Female College Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three decades of research into disordered eating in sports have revealed contradictory results, with athletes considered both at risk but also protected from eating problems. To contribute insight into the complexities of existing literature, this study examines how female college swimmers in the US experience food and their bodies in athletic, non-athletic, and digital media contexts. Drawing on 16 in- depth interviews, this study finds that these athletes experience contradictory ideals, especially in the domains of health and online self- presentation. When faced with such tensions, they often seek resolution through heightened discipline and attention towards controlling the body, a phenomenon that I call vigilant coping. While vigilant coping can provide some satisfaction and respite, it often exacerbates confusion and reproduces anxieties. As a result, a predominant strategy for resolving ambivalence becomes a source of additional distress around food and body. The women in this study show how athletic contexts contribute to the paradox of vigilant coping but also reveal creative ways of coping that go beyond vigilance. These findings are particularly important given the low success of disordered eating treatments and urgency towards improving preventative efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".