The car ride home: Exploring the content and structure of parent-child sport conversations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has examined the experiences of youth athletes and their parents (Holt, Tamminen, Black, Mandigo, & Fox, 2009; Lauer, Gould, Roman, & Pierce, 2010), as well as preferences of athletes for parental involvement in sport (Knight, Neely, & Holt, 2011; Knight & Holt, 2014). However, researchers have not examined the structure of parent-athlete communication surrounding sport practices and competitions. The purpose of this study was to examine parents' and athletes' experiences of conversations during the 'car ride home' after games and practices. Specifically, this research aimed to examine both the content and structure of parent-athlete sport conversations. Seventeen pairs of parents and adolescent athletes participated in individual semi-structured interviews. Data were analyzed using thematic and structural narrative analysis (Reissman, 2008) to examine the content and the structure of parent-athlete sport conversations, and to explore how participants described these conversations within the context of a research interview. Results pertained to: (a) the content of parent-child sport conversations (e.g., positive and negative feedback; performance advice; motivational comments); (b) the structure of parent-child sport conversations (e.g., parent vs. child-initiated conversations; conversation length; conversational techniques including questioning, direct statements, and topic shifts); (c) the impact of parent-athlete conversations (affective, performance, and motivational outcomes); and (d) structural features of participants' descriptions of sport conversations (use of rationalization, extreme comparisons, contextualization). These findings are discussed in relation to the way participants performed the roles of 'sport parent' and 'athlete' within research interviews and we also discuss implications for qualitative youth sport research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".