Is There Just One Type of Multisport Pathway? A Scoping Review of Multisport Engagement in Early Athlete Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multisport engagement is positioned as the antithesis to specialization within youth development pathways. However, different terms are used to describe the multisport pathway, which may create confusion regarding what the pathway should look like. This review investigated all published research examining the multisport pathway, with a focus on terminology, and how different terms have led to varying interpretations of this research. Four databases were searched for all peer reviewed studies published up until December 2021. All included papers were full text, in English, and focusing on multisport athlete engagement. In total, 1974 abstracts were screened for inclusion eligibility, resulting in 82 articles included within this review. General results showed most studies are empirical (71%, n = 58) and looked at athlete development pathways using retrospective questionnaires aimed at investigating the specific pathway to sporting excellence. However, despite the consensus that multisport athletes play many sports in their lifetime, there is little investigation into when and the level of intensity (play versus practice) at which these sports are being played. Further, inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe this pathway have made it difficult to understand potential mechanisms that lead to any positive or negative effects. It is recommended that differences between the key terms of diversification and sampling are clarified and should not be regarded as synonymous as they may represent different paths within multisport development based on varying levels of intensity of play and practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".