Negative Parental Behaviour in Canadian Youth Hockey: Expert Insiders’ Perceptions and Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent media coverage and peer-reviewed research has called attention to Canadian youth hockey, highlighting problematic parent behaviours (Feschuk, 2011; Gillis, 2014; Robidoux & Bocksnick, 2010). The purpose of this study was to explore negative parental behaviour in Canadian youth hockey through the perspectives of 10 expert hockey insiders. Results revealed negative parent behaviours related to stakeholder abuse, excessive investments and rewards, over-stepping coaching lines, and encouragement of aggression. Participants provided insight into the motives behind these behaviours including the lure of professional sport, the hockey hierarchy, parents’ return on hockey investments, and living vicariously through one’s children. Participants also proposed potential solutions to prevent and manage these issues including effective parent education programs with targeted curricular content, and stronger reporting and discipline systems. Findings are discussed through the lens of the what, why, and how of negative parental behaviours in youth sport, and contextualized within the current changing climate of minor hockey in Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".