Exploring perceived life skills development and participation in sport
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organised sport provides favourable conditions for positive psychosocial development. However, few studies have examined how sport facilitates positive development. The purpose of this study was to explore how perceived life skills were developed. Five formal, semi‐structured interviews and around 30 hours of informal discussions were conducted with a single participant. Resultant transcripts were subjected to Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Findings reveal an integration of processes, which resulted in positive development. Dispositions (e.g. hard work and self‐awareness) facilitated the learning of life skills. Experiential learning was described as the method in which the participant learned new life skills. Specifically, the experience of playing tennis required the participant to develop life skills. Findings provide a unique insight into the development of life skills. Findings are discussed in relation to extant life skill research and positive youth development research.
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.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it