MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399461087 · doi:10.1080/21520704.2024.2351125

Research-Based Recommendations for Supporting Forced Migrant Elite Athletes in Their Cultural Transitions to Canada

2024· article· en· W4399461087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cole E. Giffin, Robert J. Schinke, Yufeng Li, Sabine Hazboun, Kathleen Latimer, Lam Joar, Brennan Petersen, Elizabeth A. Steadman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Psychology in Action · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSports, Gender, and Society
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEliteElite athletesPsychologyAthletesApplied psychologySport psychologySocial psychologyPolitical sciencePhysical therapyPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing pathways exist for forced migrant elite athletes to continue sport within host countries’ sports systems following forced migrations. These pathways provide relocation opportunities but remain limited in supporting these athletes’ cultural transitions and integration post-settlement. Drawing on a funded project conducted with 14 forced migrant elite athletes, the purpose of this manuscript was to translate empirical findings on forced migrant elite athletes’ cultural transitions into recommendations for SPPs to support athletes’ adaptation needs. We first introduce how guided tours facilitate trusting athlete-practitioner relationships. We follow with introducing an arts-based method to develop awareness of athletes’ transition demands and their inner resources for overcoming these. We conclude with highlighting the importance of finding meaning following migration as a transition. These recommendations promote individual adaptability, well-being, purpose, social integration, and growth.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.709

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport Psychology in ActionSame topicSports, Gender, and SocietyFrench-language works237,207