Determinants of Sport Participation Among Canadian Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores adolescent sport participation. Using the most recently available national statistics, the paper presents a concise and current description of sport participation among Canadian adolescents aged 15 to 19; traces the trends in Canadian adolescent participation from 1992 to 2005 and identifies some of the most important correlates of participation for this age category. Using the qualitative method of netnography, the paper then considers the meaning and role of these core factors in the sport behaviours of adolescents as revealed in online narratives. This study’s quantitative findings highlight the impact of household context, gender, community context, self-perceptions and competing behaviours on sport participation. The netnography articulates a complicated picture of stress, social role conflict and susceptibility to external influence. The results suggest that research and managerial effort should be expended to develop targeted programs that use the household as the unit of analysis and that “position” sport within the context of the lived experiences of today’s adolescents. This means fitting sport into the time-challenged, gender-stereotyped, highly-technologised, cyber-filled lives of today’s youth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".