Elite athletes report lower psychological safety and are less likely to report interpersonal violence compared to recreational athletes: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Third party mechanisms for athletes to report experiences of interpersonal violence are highly recommended for safeguarding and a priority for sport organizations worldwide. Despite this, athletes can be reluctant to report experiences of interpersonal violence. This could be due to the environment of elite sport where interpersonal violence is often normalized, and there is a lack of psychological safety. The aims of this study were to: 1) determine differences between three competition levels (i.e., recreational, sub-elite, and elite) in psychological safety and intention to report interpersonal violence; and 2) examine if differences between competition levels in intention to report interpersonal violence are attributed to competition level differences in psychological safety. Athletes participating in different competition levels (N = 383) completed an anonymous questionnaire that measured psychological safety and intention to report interpersonal violence. Results showed that compared to recreational athletes, elite and sub-elite athletes indicated lower intention to report interpersonal violence, which was attributed to lower feelings of psychological safety reported by these athletes (Partially standardized indirect effect = −0.10 to −0.05). Our results highlight the need to ensure sport leaders (e.g., coaches, managers, directors) actively promote psychologically safe environments that facilitate the reporting of interpersonal violence at all competition levels. Additional support may be required for those at elite and sub-elite levels to help improve feelings of psychological safety in voicing concerns and incidents of interpersonal violence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".