Profiles of Teenage Athletes’ Exposure to Violence in Sport: An Analysis of Their Sport Practice, Athletic Behaviors, and Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence in sport is a major social issue generating great interest in research over the last 10 years. Studies to date highlight various forms and manifestations of violence in the lives of teenagers practicing individual or team sports, in competitive and recreational contexts. Although allegations of sexual violence involving coaches most often reach media attention, psychological and physical violence involving teammates, parents, and coaches are also prevalent. While profiles of offenders in the sport context have contributed to a better understanding of the issue, similar profiles need to be elaborated for young victims to delineate varying degrees of risk, adaptation, and needs. Latent class analyses were conducted to empirically identify different patterns of exposure to violence in sport from a sample of 1057 athletes aged 14-17 years. Teenagers participated in an online survey assessing their experiences of violence using the Violence Toward Athletes Questionnaire. Results highlighted three different profiles of victimization in the sport context: (a) a non-victimized profile constituting only 37% of the sample; (b) a profile representing 52% of the sample that is mainly exposed to psychological violence by teammates, coaches, and parents; and (c) a "poly-victimized" profile, representing 10% of the sample, that is exposed to all forms of violence at the hands of various perpetrators (teammates, coaches, and parents). The identified profiles were compared according to different indicators of sport practice, athletic behaviors, and mental health. This study delineates the influence of single and multiple forms of violence and its compound consequences on mental health and sport-related behaviors, thus portraying various degrees of need for tailored prevention and intervention measures.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".