Youth Development in North American High School Sport: Review and Recommendations
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
Millions of high school student-athletes in North America practice sport, and national federations communicate through their mission statements that this fosters student-athletes’ positive development. The purpose of the current study was to review the recent literature to examine whether the educational claims made for youth development in the context of high school sport are substantiated by empirical evidence. The review indicates that recent research efforts have focused primarily on the positive outcomes and that much less is known of the possible negative outcomes of participation in high school sport. Researchers have examined stakeholders’ perspectives on development, but studies are scarce that objectively measure the actual developmental outcomes of participation in high school sport. The little available evidence indicates that adult stakeholders seldom interact and do not collaborate to foster student-athlete development. This narrative review provides insights on the current status of research on high school sport, and recommendations are provided to further facilitate youth development in this setting.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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