What supports and what thwarts Olympic athlete well-being?: Coach and organizational perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of our study was to examine the perspectives of Olympic coaches and national performance directors regarding factors they felt influence athlete well-being (both positively and negatively), and to explore their perceived roles in contributing to the well-being of their athletes. Coaches (n = 12) and national performance directors (n = 12) participated in semi-structured interviews, that were subjected to reflexive thematic analysis. We adopted a critical interpretivist research paradigm for this study. The findings included three higher-order themes, each of which encompassed two lower-order themes. These higher-order themes included the relentless pursuit of results (i.e., lack of opportunities outside of sport, the focus on results as harmful), the influence of the coach (i.e., the coach as a relationship builder, the coach as a gatekeeper of well-being), and financial uncertainty (i.e., financial uncertainty of the program, financial uncertainty for the athlete). When taken together, the findings highlight that coaches and performance directors were often aware of threats to athlete well-being but were also uncertain how to support athlete well-being or of their role in potentially thwarting the well-being of their Olympic athletes. These findings are discussed within the broader context of the pervading culture of elite sport, and consideration for future research and knowledge mobilization. Lay summary: In this study, we queried Olympic coaches and performance directors regarding factors they felt influence elite athlete well-being, and what they felt their role is in contributing to the well-being of the athletes with whom they work. The findings within our study provide new insight into elite athlete well-being, including potential negative consequences related to the relentless pursuit of results, the impact of the coach, and the effects of financial uncertainty for Olympic 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".