A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The overall purpose of this study was to create a model of positive youth development (PYD) through sport grounded in the extant qualitative literature. More specifically, the first objective was to review and evaluate qualitative studies of PYD in sport. The second objective was to analyze and synthesize findings from these studies. Following record identification and screening, 63 articles were retained for analysis. Meta-method analysis revealed strengths of studies were the use of multiple data collection and validity techniques, which produced high-quality data. Weaknesses were limited use of 'named' methodologies and inadequate reporting of sampling procedures. Philosophical perspectives were rarely reported, and theory was used sparingly. Results of an inductive meta-data analysis produced three categories: PYD climate (adult relationships, peer relationships, and parental involvement), life skills program focus (life skill building activities and transfer activities), and PYD outcomes (in personal, social, and physical domains). A model that distinguishes between implicit and explicit processes to PYD is presented.
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 | 0.152 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".