Early specialization and talent development in figure skating: Elite coaches’ perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the many issues explored by sport science researchers, one topic that seems the least controversial is the recommendation against specialization in early sport training. However, there has been little examination of early specialization in sports where this type of training is the norm. In this study, we explored notions of early specialization and its consequences (i.e psychological, social, and physical) among 7 figure skating coaches (5 males and 2 females) responsible for coaching singles skating (both women and men) at a range of competition levels. Semi-structured interviews with each coach were subjected to a thematic analysis. Themes identified through the analysis revealed coaches were aware and attentive to the potential risks of early specialization and took steps to manage these risks. Moreover, the coaches noted that developing a skater in the environment of elite figure skating required identifying athletes with the right combination of characteristics, and that there were important nuances to developing these athletes in the Canadian context. These findings highlight the complexities of developing a well-rounded athlete in a sport where early specialization is widely accepted as the norm.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it