Understanding parental stressors: An investigation of British tennis-parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examined the stressors experienced by British tennis-parents. The parents (n = 123) completed an extensive survey focused on the internal and external demands that they had encountered through having a child compete in the sport. The survey consisted of open-ended questions related to competition, coaching, organizational, personal, and developmental issues. Inductive and deductive content analysis resulted in the development of seven core themes of tennis-parental stressor: competition, coaches, finance, time, siblings, organization-related, and developmental. Parents experienced a diverse number of competitive stressors indicating the particular difficulties they faced before, during, and after matches involving their child, opponents, other parents, and officials. They also reported a wide range of organizational stressors that paralleled the financial, social, and personal investments that accompanied their support roles. The results of this research reinforce the importance of parents possessing the necessary skills to cope with the psychological, developmental, and logistical demands of competitive tennis. Implications with respect to induction workshops and education for coaches and parents are presented, as well as consideration for governing bodies to enhance their communication channels and logistical support. Future research recommendations are posed to build upon the study of this domain in youth sport.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".