“Older, Faster, Stronger”: The Multiple Benefits of Masters Sport Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While masters sport aligns with the holistic concept of active aging, related research has focused predominantly on the physical domain, and less is known about the psychological, cognitive, and social benefits of older adults' participation. This study examined, in combination, the perceived psychological, social, cognitive, and physical benefits of training and competing as a masters athlete, while considering age and gender differences. Forty masters athletes residing in Canada were interviewed (21 men and 19 women; 15 who were 50-64 years and 25 who were 65-79 years), representing 15 different sports. Interviews were coded both deductively and inductively, revealing several subthemes of benefits for the broader perceived psychological, social, cognitive, and physical benefits, with few but notable differences between women and men, and those younger than 65 years and those 65+ years. Our findings provide new insights into the positive experiences of active aging associated with high levels of physical activity among older adults, such as greater self-confidence, especially for women, comradery, and feeling mentally sharper, especially for the older age group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".