The Role of Families in Youth Sport Programming in a Canadian Aboriginal Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been a recent push in the sport psychology literature for sport participants to be approached based on their cultural backgrounds. However, there are few examples where a cultural approach is considered, such as a culturally reflexive version of participatory action research (PAR). In the current study, the role of family is considered in relation to the sport engagement of Canadian Aboriginal youth. METHODS: Mainstream researchers teamed with coresearchers from the Wikwemikong Unceded Indian Reserve for 5 years. Community meetings and talking circles were employed as culturally sensitive data collection techniques to uncover how to encourage youth participation in Wikwemikong's sport programs. The overarching methodology for the project is PAR. RESULTS: Themes and subthemes were determined by community consensus with terms indigenous (ie, culturally relevant) among the local Aboriginal culture. Family was considered important for youth involvement in Aboriginal community sport programs. Parents were expected to support their children by managing schedules and priorities, providing transportation, financial support, encouragement, and being committed to the child's activity. Aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, grandparents, and the family as a whole were seen as sharing the responsibility to retain youth in sport through collateral support (ie, when gaps in parental support arose). CONCLUSIONS: Suggestions are proposed regarding how families in Aboriginal communities can collaborate to facilitate sport and physical activity among their youth. Further suggestions are proposed for researchers engaging in culturally reflexive research with participants and coresearchers from oppressed cultures.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".