Examining Young Recreational Male Soccer Players' Experience in Adult- and Peer-Led Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Youth sport has the potential to be one of the healthiest and most beneficial activities in which children can partake. Participation in a combination of adult-led and peer-led sport structures appears to lead to favorable outcomes such as enhanced physical fitness, as well as social and emotional development. The purpose of the present study was to examine the subjective and objective experiences of 27 recreational male soccer players aged 10 to 12 years old (M = 10.11 years, SD = 0.32) across adult-led and peer-led sport structures. METHOD: Direct video observation and experience-rating scales were utilized in an effort to shed light on the impact of adult-led and peer-led sport structures on the same athletes. RESULTS: In the adult-led structures, youth experienced high levels of effort and concentration while spending more time physically or mentally engaged. Meanwhile, youth experienced high rates of prosocial behaviors, sport-related communication, and general communication during the peer-led structures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study indicate that rather than one approach being superior to the other, both adult- and peer-led sport structures have the potential to yield unique benefits toward children's positive experiences in 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".