MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410916240 · doi:10.1080/21520704.2025.2494056

Designing a Mental Health Strategy for System-Wide Changes: A National Sport Organization’s Roadmap

2025· article· en· W4410916240 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mikaela C. Papich, Natalie Durand‐Bush, Robert B. Shaw, Dana A. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Psychology in Action · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSpinal Cord Injury BCUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthProcess managementApplied psychologyPublic relationsBusinessPsychotherapistPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project focuses on the first phase of a multi-year project carried out with a national sport organization (NSO) to design a system-wide mental health (MH) strategy to improve well-being across its ecosystem. The collaborative work was carried out with Tennis Canada (TC). It was guided by two overarching questions: (a) How does TC design a sport-specific MH strategy, and (b) What priorities, objectives, and recommended actions from the national MH Strategy does TC include in its personalized strategy? Informed by a Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach, a representative group of 21 members from TC’s community formed a Task Force (TF), led by a Core Leadership Team (CLT), to create the strategic plan over an 11-month period. The TF and CLT engaged in four formal meetings and completed a Needs/Gap Assessment to identify which elements within the national MH Strategy were most relevant to TC. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected, analyzed, discussed, and integrated by the participants to generate the five priorities, 18 objectives, and 45 actions included in TC’s strategy. This project demonstrates how sport psychology practitioners (SPPs) can work with a national sport organization to develop a comprehensive strategic roadmap to improve MH 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.346

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport Psychology in ActionSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207