A Content Analysis Exploring 25 Years of Conference Abstracts From the Eastern Canada Sport and Exercise Psychology Symposium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine 25 years of abstracts from a prominent sport and exercise psychology student conference to investigate presentation characteristics, presenter characteristics, and presenters’ current occupations. A quantitative and qualitative content analysis of 2,102 abstracts and 1,204 presenters was conducted. Sport psychology research was represented most frequently over all time periods (49.5%–65.7%); however, exercise psychology (+10.9%) and health psychology (+5.3%) grew more prevalent over time. Quantitative methods were used most frequently in all time periods (43.9%–53.8%), while qualitative research increased in frequency over time (+4.9%). The most common research topics, regardless of date, were (a) physical activity (13.6%) and (b) equity, diversity, and inclusion (11.5%). Results of current occupations of former presenters demonstrated that the proportion of individuals who occupy academic positions has decreased over time (−21.7%). Explanations and implications are provided for research topic and methods trends and the state of career prospects for students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".