Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children across Canada participate in a variety of organized sports (Active Healthy Kids Canada, 2015) and parents are a vital part of children's sport experience as both practical (e.g., driving to practice, signing up, etc.) and emotional supporters (Omli & Wiese-Bjornstal, 2011). Many parents' support is positive, with parents displaying good behavior while watching youth sport events, however poor behavior still exists on youth sport sidelines and can take away from the overall enjoyment for young athletes (Bowker et al., 2009). Using research from sport psychology and sport management, this study examined, from the perspective of parents, whether personal (gender and previous sport experience) and situational (sport type, stakes, and occurrence) factors influenced behavior on baseball and ice hockey sidelines during youth sport events. Bronfenbrenner's (1977) ecological model was used to organize previous research and, combined with the general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), created the multi-disciplinary framework used to guide the study presented here. 1040 parents from provincial sport organizations in western Canada completed a survey providing insight into their perceptions of behavior on youth sport sidelines. While some differences were found in the personal and situation factors examined, overall poor behavior was not reported frequently and was generally considered unacceptable. There were some areas identified where parent behavior can improve however, and these results can be used by sport organizations to educate parents and inform policy around behavior on youth sport sidelines, as well as guide future sport parent 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".