The Influence of Junior Hockey Participation on Ontario University Male Hockey Players' Identity Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The over-prioritization of a professional hockey career in junior hockey has impacts on athletes’ academic motivation and identity development. Systematically, junior hockey does not support the traditional path that students take into postsecondary education, leaving many male hockey players viewing their Canadian postsecondary options as a ‘backup plan’ they hope they never have to use (Chard, 2013). The purpose of this study was to identify the influence of junior hockey participation on university expectations, experiences, and motivations. An explanatory mixed-methods approach was followed consisting of two phases of data collection and analysis (Creswell, 2009). The phase one online survey collected responses from Gaston Gayles’ (2005) Student-Athlete Motivation towards Sport and Academic Questionnaire (SAMSAQ), and produced a two-factor modified academic and sport motivation solution. The survey was completed by 113 male hockey players from 12 Ontario universities and indicated that while in university, athletes’ academic motivation is slightly higher than sport motivation, and similar to previous research on university student-athletes, male hockey players experienced a role conflict between their academic and sport roles. In phase two, semi-structured interviews were completed with 14 participants representing 9 institutions across Ontario. A thematic analysis of the data (Braun Clarke, 2013) produced results that pertained to identity development theories and led to the creation of a proposed Professional Hockey Identity Mindset Model. This model provides unique insight into the impact of sport-over-prioritization in high school on identity development and has significance for future research in hockey and athletics more broadly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".