The Broncos: A Social Support Approach to Team Tragedy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the last decade there has been a widespread effort to collectively acknowledge mental health challenges faced by individuals within society and to improve their outcomes through social support. While much of this discussion has included sport, sport organizations remain resistant to change at every level from the professional level to school sports. Accordingly, individuals have continually faced mental health challenges that originated or were compounded by their participation in sport. This study attempted to identify the social supports and barriers to those supports that resulted in athletes having poor outcomes, while also identifying the strategies and social supports used by athletes to eventually reach positive outcomes in sport’s social environment. A case study methodology was used, with the 1986-87 Swift Current Broncos WHL team serving as participants. The team was chosen due to their experience with two stressors: a bus accident that killed four teammates, and their coach being a serial pedophile. The study’s results showed that nearly all participants experienced mental health challenges because of these stressors, and that a majority of participants perceived that the social environment of Canadian junior hockey in the 1980s contributed to the athlete’s negative mental health outcomes by acting as a barrier towards social support. The implications of this study suggests that the environment within junior hockey is not conducive to positive mental health outcomes, a conclusion that was seriously heightened by Hockey Canada’s 2022 scandal involving a sexual misconduct fund that occurred just after the study was completed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".