A grounded theory of positive youth development through sport based on results from a qualitative meta-study
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.753
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.648
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
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.
The record
- Venue
- International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology
- Topic
- Youth Development and Social Support
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- University of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaYork UniversityUniversity of Prince Edward IslandQueen's UniversityUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Alberta
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaDeakin University
- Keywords
- Grounded theoryPsychologyExtant taxonQualitative researchMeta-analysisStrengths and weaknessesApplied psychologySport psychologyPositive Youth DevelopmentIdentification (biology)Data collectionSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySocial scienceSociology
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes