Visual representations of single- and multi-sport participation in a youth swimming sample: Implications for definitions and discussions of early specialization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic literature and sport policy documents have cited concerns about an increasing prevalence of early sport specialization, with associated burnout, dropout, and injury. However, evidence to support such statements is limited. Definitions of early specialization vary, but a common criterion is continued participation in a single sport, prior to adolescence. We explored the prevalence of single-sport participation and other patterns of sport involvement from ages 6-12 in a Canadian swimming sample using retrospective longitudinal methods. Parents of 236 competitive swimmers (ages 12-17) completed surveys on their children's sport backgrounds, including the number of sports participated in annually from age 6-12. A cluster heat map elucidated single- and multi-sport patterns over time. Mixed analyses of variance tested for differences by gender and club type. Fourteen percent of our sample showed stable participation in either one sport or multiple sports per year over time, 25% decreased their annual number of sports, and 60% increased. This trend of increasing, rather than decreasing the number of sports in their annual activity roster when approaching age 12 was particularly pronounced for girls. Only 10 participants (4% of the sample) consistently engaged in a single sport each year from age 6-12. Summer (seasonal) swimmers consistently did more sports than year-round swimmers. Overall, our findings showed highly idiosyncratic longitudinal patterns of sport participation that did not easily conform to current sport activity guidelines. We also found similar idiosyncrasy in an ad-hoc analysis of participants who had dropped out of swimming a year later. If single-sport participation is considered a key criterion for defining early specialization, our findings suggest the prevailing narrative around early specialization may be overstated in relation to the number of single-sport athletes. Alternatively, other components of early specialization may be more prevalent and deserving of attention due to possible associations with harmful outcomes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".