MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151851490 · doi:10.1080/10413200.2010.525589

Parental Behaviors in Team Sports: How do Female Athletes Want Parents to Behave?

2011· article· en· W2151851490 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Sport Psychology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAthletesPsychologyCompetition (biology)Context (archaeology)Team sportYouth sportsDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyIdentification (biology)Applied psychologyPhysical therapyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Parents display various positive and negative behaviors at youth sport competitions. This study examined early adolescent female athletes’ preferred parental behaviors at team sport competitions. Individual interviews were conducted with 36 female athletes (M age = 13.5 years) who frequently competed in team sports. Data analysis led to the identification of three categories of parental behavior across different phases of competition (before, during, after). Athletes indicated preferences related to preparation for competition, parental support and, encouragement during competition, and the provision of feedback after competition. The results suggest that parents should engage in different types of behaviors as the temporal context of competitions change. Notes 1. The final iteration of the results was influenced by feedback provided by the Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers, to whom we are very grateful.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it