Athletes’ Experiences of Addressing Maltreatment Through a Reporting Process: A Critical Narrative Analysis as Guided by Trauma-Informed Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical narrative approach guided by trauma-informed practice explores athletes’ experiences of addressing maltreatment through a formal reporting process. Safe Sport initiatives often marginalize the knowledge and needs of athletes, particularity those from equity-denied groups. This study aims to amplify the voices and experiences of athletes who have been harmed within what I interpreted as oppressive institutions and structures. An overview of maltreatment in sport within a Canadian context and an autoethnography on the importance and challenges of implementing a research project as a (developing) trauma-informed practice are offered. The results are presented as idiographic narratives on four athletes’ experiences of the reporting process, which illuminate the harm and re-traumatization perpetuated within reporting processes. The trauma-informed practice within this study offers an alternative modality of engaging with athletes who have experienced harm; one that prioritizes the on-going consent, autonomy, and well-being of the athletes with a commitment to harm reduction.
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 | 0.023 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".