High school athletes’ perspectives on support, communication, negotiation and life skill development
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
There is a widespread belief that sport can be used as a tool to promote life skills and positive youth development. However, little research has examined athletes’ perspectives on the development of life skills in school‐based sport programmes, in which a vast amount of youth are involved. In addition, research has yet to examine how youth experience support, communication, and negotiation processes with parents and coaches in high school sport, elements that play a crucial role in life skill development. Taking this into consideration, the purpose of the study was to document high school athletes’ perspectives on support, communication, negotiation and life skill development. Results indicated that: (1) while variability was observed, many athletes believed they were able to negotiate many aspects of their sport participation with parents and coaches, (2) a large number of athletes believe they received adequate support from parents and were able to communicate with coaches, and (3) athletes believed high school sport participation allowed them to develop a number of life skills that could be transferred to other life domains.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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