Reframing the Service Environment in Collegiate Sport: A Transformative Sport Service Research Approach
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
This study applies a transformative sport service research approach to examine student-athletes’ wellness within a collegiate sport setting. Sixteen semi-structured interviews were completed during the COVID-19 pandemic and the stop of play in Canada (early 2021). Findings denoted wellness was influenced by this time period as well as organizational factors which are within the purview of existing management practices. The study details the service environment to understand physical and mental well-being while taking into consideration the general and organizational environments which influence the student-athletes. Findings demonstrate that eudaimonic-related experiences (e.g., learning, development, relationship) are related to student-athletes' mental well-being. This research underpins the role of education, policies, and communication, which draws several implications for the service environment in a collegiate sport setting and the key stakeholders involved in producing an environment to enhance student-athletes’ experience. The paper elaborates on the importance of the service environment and provides evidence of what student-athletes suggest management can change and focus their efforts on towards creating a transformative service environment. Theoretical implications for the transformative service research are put forward, including the co-creative aspects to determine programming which could contribute towards student-athletes wellness. Broader suggestions for change within the sport system and future research are also advanced.
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 | 0.012 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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