Safe sport and health promotion: elite youth athletes’ perspectives at the Winter Youth Olympic Games
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Youth Olympic Games (YOG) combines competition with educational initiatives for elite youth athletes. Despite the benefits of sport participation, young athletes face risks related to health and interpersonal violence (IV). The 'Mind, Body & Me' initiative at the 2024 Gangwon YOG was designed to promote holistic athlete health and safe sport. This study assessed youth athletes' understanding of health-related rights, perceptions of safe sport and awareness of safeguarding services. METHODS: tests to identify differences based on sex, continent, sport and language. Content analysis was performed for qualitative responses. RESULTS: Most athletes felt that their health-related rights were respected; however, they reported discomfort seeking mental health support. Athletes described healthy sport as 'fun,' 'safe' and 'good,' while unhealthy sport was linked to 'bad,' 'bullying' and 'negative,' with regional variations. Bullying was the most widely recognised form of IV, particularly in female athletes, who were more aware of IV than males. Male athletes and those from Europe and Oceania expressed greater discomfort with reporting IV. While 74% were aware of the International Olympic Committee's safeguarding services, knowledge gaps existed among female athletes and non-English speakers. Athletes asked for more interactive tools, mental health programmes and improved accessibility to resources. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the importance of a holistic, athlete-centred approach, the need to improve access to health support services, the value of culturally tailored safeguarding strategies and the imperative of integrating safeguarding into broader health policies in youth sport.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".