A Study of Retirement Transition and Fandom of Retired Hockey Players
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand and explore the retirement transition of professional men’s hockey players. Specifically, the research examined the role athlete identity theory has this important period of their lives (Brewer et al., 1993). Previous research has heavily ignored studying former professional players and the sport of hockey, but while some similarities exist in the athletic transitions for all sports, the experiences of retired professional hockey players are not necessarily representative of all other sports (Andrijiw, 2010). The study showed the importance of preparing for retirement and how not doing such can lead to many difficulties (Knights et al., 2019). To fulfill this study’s purpose, a qualitative research design was constructed to study retired men’s professional hockey players. Participants (n=11) who had been retired for a for a minimum of three years were sampled. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, taking place either over the telephone or via virtual videoconferencing (Zoom), and then analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2000). Four main categories arose, and within them, multiple sub-categories. These findings highlight the difficulties that can occur during the transitional years for a recently retired athlete, and how the athletic identity plays an important role in the process. This study provides a deeper theoretical understanding of the role the athletic identity has in the experiences retired hockey players have in their transition out of professional sport. The findings of this study could lead to continued awareness of these challenges so other athletes are aware of what might be in store for them in their retirements. Further research is necessary to continue to examine the uniqueness hockey retirement, as the challenges are far greater than many athletes realize.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".